+1 for #4 noop, at least until there's evidence of a problem. Kenn
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:27 PM Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:33 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? > > > > 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. > > +1 to my modified version from #2 (and 0 to the others as I don't > think they will help a lot): > "Remove all IPMC members who were not on the initial proposal and who > were voted in. Those left on the IPMC vote for those, as members, who > can recruit, guide mentors, and review podling graduations, and they > also vote for those, as mentors (committers), who have ever been > active mentors for podlings." > > Mentors are committers: if someone starts contributing in this > community, they are to be recognized and invited to a mentor > (committer) in this project; if they contribute more for the community > consistently, they are to be invited to a IPMC member. In smaller > IPMC, IPMC members focus more on helping/guiding mentors and reviewing > graduations in various aspects, and mentors focus more on detail > issues in podlings, providing enough overview and information to IPMC. > I think this will make it a fairer merit-earning game, to new comers > getting helps from mentors and (graduation and/or high-level) reviews > from members, watchers considering to help, mentors eager to help > graduations, more focused members, ... > > > > > 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. > > +1 to always be voting, whether they are ASF members or not, like other > PMCs. > > > > > 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. > > My modified version includes all active people as mentors (committers) > at least, so there's no loss as well. > > Regards, > > Woonsan > > > > > 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. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > >
