The reason we are reduced to guesswork and posturing about how to fix what ails us is because we haven’t a clue what the core problems with incubation are. All we have are a rash of symptoms: inadequate release voting oversight, inadequate podling community development, etc. It sure would’ve been nice to collect feedback from successful podlings who cause us little or no strife to see what actually distinguishes these problems other than perceived noise levels and our strong desire to quash drama wherever it appears.
I’m afraid drama in small doses is a necessary part of how we do business at the ASF, because nobody has time to think long-term unless they are dealing with another newfound crisis to remedy. On Nov 9, 2013, at 3:38 AM, Raphael Bircher <r.birc...@gmx.ch> wrote: > Hi Marvin > > Am 09.11.13 07:15, schrieb Marvin Humphrey: >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 08:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>>> IMO the IPMC cannot delegate legal oversight to a sub-committee (for >>>> example) unless that sub-committee consisted of members of the IPMC. The >>>> reason for this is hat only members of the IPMC are recognized by the board >>>> and thus only IPMC members have binding votes. >>> That is what the board has done to date. That is not the only >>> possibility in terms of what the board *could* do, which is much more >>> where my question was leading. >> The issue was brought before the Board earlier this week and they have >> explicitly bounced it back to us. Their rationale is that the problem lies >> within the scope of project governance that the Board has delegated to the >> Incubator PMC. The Board has plenty going on these days; I can understand >> that they don't want to get involved in debates over e.g. the nitty gritty >> details of pTLP design. >> >> So, it's our responsibility to design a solution using only the resources >> currently available to us. If we exercise a little creativity and >> flexibility, I don't think we will find ourselves unduly constrained. >> >>> My issue is that granting PMC membership is too big a step for many >>> podling members. Going from being newbie podling member, to a part of a >>> team responsible for 50+ incubator projects is, with the freedom to >>> mentor other podlings, is too big a step for most podling members, and >>> will remain scary even if you attempt to restrict 'powers' through >>> social convention. >> That sounds unreasonably pessimistic. Historically, when contributors from >> active podlings have been nominated, vetted and successfully voted onto the >> IPMC, things have worked out very well: >> >> Brian Duxbury (Thrift) >> Richard Hirsch (ESME) >> Marvin Humphrey (Lucy) >> Karl Wright (ManifoldCF) >> Dave Fisher (OpenOffice) >> Andrei Savu (Provisionr) >> >> I'm proud to be part of that group. I would like to see it grow -- in my >> view, the Incubator has erred by not recruiting aggressively enough! > Probabily yes, but a step between IPMC and nothing would lower the barrier. > Well, I'm shepherd now, reading the lists etc. But I beleve the incubator > miss samething to show the ability to be a mentor. Maybe something like a > Assistent mentor. The assistent Mentor can be assinged to a podling but have > for exemple not the right to subscribe the private lists. That would > probabily also encourage more. > > Greetings Raphael > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
