I am not aware of the problem we are trying to fix. I don't even know if I am a mentor not subscribed to private@.
Without knowing what we are trying to solve, it is hard to weigh in on fixes. So my ask is what is the issue? On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 19:25 Liang Chen <chenliang6...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi > > One more suggestion: How about maintaining one table, and ask IPMC to > freely > provide info by them-self which part they are mentoring or will be going to > mentor as volunteer. > For example myself : Helping new project (DataSketches) to prepare > incubator proposal. and participate in some vote for new releases and new > projects. > > Regards > Liang > > > Ted Dunning wrote > > 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 < > > > roman@ > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:33 PM Justin Mclean < > > > justin@ > > > > > >> 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-unsubscribe@.apache > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > > > general-help@.apache > > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
