I'd like to understand Greg's concerns better. The complaint that I saw has to do with comments on release candidates, which I believe there is a straightforward solution for (don't be so picky about the first podling releases).
Are there any other instances of IPMC members meddling in podlings' affairs? Craig > On Mar 2, 2019, at 3:54 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:17 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com > <mailto:seb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>>> I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big >> problem >>>> either. We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again >> later >>>> if a community wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave >> and >>>> then join again. >>>>> >>>>> Some context, over 300 projects have gone through the incubator, 50 >> are >>>> there currently, each requires a champion and 3 mentors at the start >> (all >>>> IPMC members), even with some mentors working on multiple podling it's >> not >>>> surprising the IPMC is 300 people or so. Nor should it be that a large >>>> number of them are inactive as most of the projects they were involved >> in >>>> have graduated (or retired). >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>>> But despite this some still think it is an issue so we IMO we should >>>> address it, unless they change their minds, and say so here. >>>> >>>> Personally, I don't think that is a reason to reduce the IPMC count. >>>> I think it needs to be established WHY it is thought to be an issue >> first. >>>> >>> >>> It encourages drive-by bikeshedding. "I'm an IPMC Member from a few years >>> back. I see $foo, and OMG need to comment on it." >>> >>> Did anybody stop and read the concerns recently raised to the Board? Much >>> of the focus on that email was about such drive-by commenting. >>> >>> Thus, reduce the opportunity for drive-by. >> >> Since the general@ list is public, I don't think reducing the IPMC >> will stop comments. >> > > So? It is to reduce the number of people who feel empowered to meddle into > everything every podling does. You want to fix general@ ??, then go ahead. > I want to see people who choose not to *participate* in the IPMC [by > subscribing to private@] dropped from the roster. The whole world can chat > on general@. But if you want to be *part* of the IPMC, and want a binding > vote, and want to really throw-in on Incubator matters, then you damned > well better subscribe. > > The basic structure of 200+ people all having "merit" to jump into a > podling's pond is a priori broken. We have *specific* feedback that this is > true. Not a guess. Not some survey. A "letter" signed by numerous > individuals that this is the case. So until the Incubator decides its basic > structure is Wrong(tm), and stops pushing back against that feedback, then > what is a simple reversible change to try and disempower the knuckleheads > who want to throw in, on the good work done by our podlings? ... Right. > Trim the IPMC. > > -g Craig L Russell Secretary, Apache Software Foundation c...@apache.org <mailto:c...@apache.org> http://db.apache.org/jdo <http://db.apache.org/jdo>
