Two clarifications prompted by Marvins observations: 1) by no progress I meant in resolving the issue of being crippled by its own weight. I certainly didn't mean no progress in anything. You'll find plenty of cases where I make that same point. Sorry for not being clear.
2) I don't see how anyone can -1 moving forwards "as appropriate" when that means as is proper for the IPMC after a review of the opinions. I think you interpreted "as appropriate" as meaning I knew what the outcome of your review would be - that is not the case. Thank you for conducting the review and summarizing the thread and the various views within it so that we can see what "as appropriate" is ;-) Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Dave Fisher Sent: 7/29/2013 11:03 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Ross Gardler Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Ross Gardler > <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >> The IPMC has been incapable of any kind if action for a long time. Full >> consensus is not possible, what is required is progress. > > The Incubator is making plenty of progress. Day by day out on the podling > lists, contributors are absorbing information and Mentors are guiding; here in > the nucleus on general@, we are also finding ways to move forward. > > For instance: While the proposals for exit interviews and an Incubator ombud > may not have panned out as expected, the discussion around them yielded a new > documentation page which has gone over very well: > <http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhatToExpect>. Even better, it was penned > by someone who had not previously contributed to the Incubator in such a > capacity: Alex Harui, who I hope we hear more from in the future. > > There is a perception among a small group of highly invested Incubator > contributors that the IPMC is immobile. Historically, the members of this > group have sent an extraordinary volume of email to general@ advocating for > their favored initiatives (which typically involve restructuring the Incubator > or refactoring its processes), often in highly contentious rapid-fire > exchanges. It is true that such discussions often achieve little despite > their extreme length; my perception is that they go nowhere because more > effort goes into restating the same arguments time after time and outlasting > the opposition than into trying to think outside the box and find creative > solutions. > > The chief effect of these long, hot threads is to suck up all the oxygen in > the room. In this case, Alex's contribution is going unacknowledged because > we're fixated on the ombud proposal thread -- even though WhatToExpect > constitutes "progress" on the very same issue of mitigating podling > contributor discontent. > > It's unfortunate that we have allowed the obsessions of a strident few to > obscure great work being done throughout the Incubator. > >> The minority position holders should step aside (assuming their objections >> are unlikely to cause long lasting damage) or step up (assuming they have an >> alternative proposal). > > People *have* stepped up -- Alex for starters. Then there's Dave Fisher, who > argues that the proposed ombud role serves basically the same purpose as the > existing institution of the "Incubator shepherds". Dave *is* a shepherd, so > by his argument he's been shouldering a portion of that workload for quite > some time now. > > Establishing an Incubator ombud is not an imperative and it is not the only > way forward. The state of the current ombud proposal remains: no consensus -- > and that's fine, in my opinion, even though I'm in favor. > >> Lets give Marvin a little space to review the thread and then lets move >> forward as appropriate. > > -1 on "move forward as appropriate" because the chair does not have the power > to overrule the objections of other IPMC members. Nevertheless, since my > assistance has been requested in reviewing the thread, I'll oblige. > > Chris Mattmann, Roman Shaposhnik and Chip Childers were concerned about > role redundancy: > > http://s.apache.org/rjI (mattmann) > > +1, the chair is already the Ombudsman. Or should be at least. > No need for duplication and more overhead (and confusion). > > http://s.apache.org/u9 (rvs) > > Personally I don't see much value add over a set of active > mentors + IPMC chair. > > http://s.apache.org/ZdQ (chipchilders) > > IMO, a PMC chair should both behave and be seen to the community as acting > in this capacity. However, others have commented on at least the > perception not being that this is the case. Given that, I'd be > comfortable with this as an experiment... so +0. > > http://s.apache.org/zmu (mattmann) > > I'm not in favor of an Ombudsman. Seems like an extra layer of overhead > beyond what the Chair already provides. Seriously does someone need a > title in order to be the clearinghouse for folks' honest assessments of > the Incubator, its personnel, or other sensitive issues? > > I think the best response to this is that while the IPMC chair needs to serve > as a good confidante when petitioned privately, it is not obvious to people > who are new to Apache that such an avenue is open to them. Having a dedicated > ombud address will encourage conversations which wouldn't happen otherwise. > > Dave Fisher, as mentioned above, focuses on overlap between ombud and > shepherds: > > http://s.apache.org/u3 > > I think we are looking for people in the IPMC who are willing to help > podlings solved their real and their perceived problems. An Ombudsman is > one title for someone like that and so is Shepherd. > > I think that there exists an ever changing group within the IPMC that in > their own serves this function. These people meet at private@. > > Why can't a PPMC go to private@ with any issue and then someone can take > care of it? > > My response is that we need as many shepherds as we can muster, but the role > of ombud is best handled by a single individual for the sake of maximizing > confidentiality and minimizing conflict of interest. > > Bertrand was skeptical about an ASF-wide ombud, but didn't raise any objection > to an Incubator-specific position. > > http://s.apache.org/NAa > > We don't have that, and I don't think we need it - people should feel free > to contact people that they trust (officers, board members, ASF members) > privately if there's a need, and not having someone elected in the > ombudsman role means people are free to talk to whoever they think will > help. > > My reaction is that it probably makes sense to run an experiment with an > Incubator ombud -- if it turns out we don't need one, then we conclude that > the ASF at large doesn't need one either. > > And then there were my own objections, which have already been addressed. > > A separate thread started by Joe Schaefer explored what the ombud might be > tasked with. > > http://s.apache.org/9UV > > 1) proactively solicits opinions of exiting podlings > about their experiences in the form of interviews > and surveys. > > 2) make anonymized results of (1) available to the IPMC > on a regular basis. > > 3) provides advocacy and facilitates solutions for > committers who report issues with their podling's > mentors. > > Alan suggested a modification to bullet point 3 which was received +1s from > JimJag and Chip Childers. > > http://s.apache.org/FWi > > provides advocacy and facilitates solutions for podling, and IPMC members, > who report issues that cannot normally be solved through normal > established processes. > > In other threads, the subject of anonymity has proven controversial, which > might argue for leaving it out. To my mind that's an implementation detail, > though. > > I suggest starting a new thread with a modified proposal that addresses or at > least acknowledges some of those concerns. If there are no objections after > 72 hours, go ahead. My hunch is that with JimJag as the candidate, a new > proposal is unlikely to garner unyielding opposition. Thanks for all the quotes. My position is evolved as yoursmay have. If Jim is willing to be the initial incubator ombud I certainly support the experiment. Do we really need a new thread? I think that 72 hours after Ross's email is plenty of revolutions of the globe. Regards, Dave > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
