On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > So just chill out for a moment or two and try to take in the more > substantive issue around having someone who is proactively tasked with > gathering data about our overall performance as seen through the eyes of our > consumers. This isn't an activity past chairs have shown a real willingness > to tackle themselves other than to claim the standard open door policy we > all make. Alan is right, the IPMC has little more than anecdotal evidence > that we are doing the needful and from what I've heard that evidence is > mixed.
Thanks, Joe, that's persuasive. It is absolutely true that we have not pursued podling feedback proactively with any kind of consistency and I am sure that we have squandered many opportunities to improve the incubation process as a result. I also agree that it's not necessary and probably not desirable for the IPMC Chair to take point. > If you agree that this merits some attention, I would be a little > disappointed in your delegation skills if you refused on principle to let > someone who is not chair actually try. I agree that so long as the job is being done by *someone*, the Chair's obligation is satisfied. Exit interviews and such seem outside the normal expectations for a Chair, though. And the Incubator is a big place -- the task of ensuring that all voices are heard is arguably already delegated if you consider all the podling dev lists that the Chair isn't subscribed to. While I think it's important to emphasize that the Chair position encompasses an ombud role, I see no problem with having a dedicated ombud -- especially if that person performs specialized tasks like processing exit interviews. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
