On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and bug #2 is this scheme of
> adding IPMC members based on PPMC merit.
"Adding IPMC members based on PPMC merit" was the implementation
which garnered the most support on the first go-around. Unfortunately, things
look grim so far:
* An email to private@incubator soliciting nominees from one specific
podling came up empty.
* An email to private@incubator soliciting nominees from any podling at all
also failed to elicit a single response.
* Nominations have been complicated by the difficulty of establishing
exactly what criteria justify elevating someone with PPMC merit onto the
IPMC.
In order to compensate for Mentor attrition and a serious dent in the problem
of release vote scarcity, I reckon we need at least at least one new IPMC
member per podling on average. Maybe we could start with a handful.
But zero?
My analysis is that this approach cannot scale because it lacks a forcing
function. If nominating potential IPMC members from podlings remains both
uncomfortable and optional, it just will not get done often enough to solve
a systemic problem.
Do any of the people who favored this stratagem feel as though we have not yet
given it our best effort?
In order to arrive at a consensus solution, I believe that all of us are going
to have to show some flexibility about implementation details. I hope that
you feel as though your concerns have been heard, and that you will be
supportive of other means which achieve similar ends.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
