I don't think that the number of inactive IPMC members is a factor in anything. They are, by definition, inactive.
So I would vote for the no-op action (#4, I think). On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:39 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:33 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > It’s been suggested that the IPMC is too large, what do other IPMC > members think might be a way to address this? > > Personally, I believe that "IPMC is too large" argument is only applicable > to > how quickly/easily consensus can be built. That's literally the only > situation > when the size of IPMC gets in the way (sometimes). > > Is anyone aware of any other situations where "IPMC is too large" argument > is actually legit? > > At any rate, the rest of my feedback will be from that single perspective: > > > Please discuss and indicate +1 what you would think would help, you can > vote for more than one. > > > > Some suggestions: > > 1. Ask all inactive IPMC if they want to continue being on the IPMC and > see who steps down. Being inactive they are probably not following this > list so we need to identify and send each one email them personally. > > 2. There were some questions around merit raised, remove all IPMC > members who were not on the initial proposal and who were voted in. Those > left on the IPMC vote back in those who are currently active. > > 3. Get rid of all IPMC members, and vote (with ASF members vote being > binding - not sure how else it could be done?) currently active ones back > in. > > 4. Do nothing as this is not actually a problem but instead address > other underlying issues. e.g. lack of mentor engagement. > > I would like to suggest a 5th alternative (again this is from the > above's perspective): > * Don't change anything, but for any situation that requires > consensus building just be a tad more formal with how we close loops > and track if we really get as many obstructionists as we thing that > the size of the IPMC allows. If not -- we don't have a problem. > > > Also re point 2 do you think we should drop that ASF members can > automatically get IPMC membership and change it to requiring a vote by the > IPMC? It’s has always seem odd to me that this is the case. We’ve recently > voted more people in that we’ve had requests from ASF members. > > > > Any other sugestions? > > > > Options 2 and 3 may cause some issues around mentors, but if they were > not active then I guess it’s no big loss. > > > > And any suggestions on level of activity? Such as: > > - Emailed the list in the last year. > > - Reviewed at least one release in that time. > > > > It’s already been determined that some (about 15%) of the less than > active PMC members (out of the 100 odd that are not signed up to the IPMC > private list) do help out infrequently but that help is very useful. That > may also apply to other inactive IPMC members, so I would suggest the bar > for what consider active be kept low. > > I honestly don't see how all of these options of getting people in and > out of IPMC can actually help with this consensus building thing. So > yeah -- I'd say #5. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
