As framed herein, #4 for sure. (But, that doesn't necessarily exclude support for various ideas that rework how IPMC operates, and where reducing the size may be a small part of something larger and intentional.)
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:13 PM Ross Gardler <rgard...@outlook.com> wrote: > I think this thread misses the point of the original observation. > > Firstly, I've not seen anyone suggest that removing inactive IPMC members > will make any difference. What I've seen is a suggestion that active IPMC > members on general@ should be expected to be on the private list. > > While there aren't many conversations over there. When there is one it is > important. > > Secondly, I think the framing of #4 (which I agree with in the context of > this thread, given the above observation) incorrectly identifies the "real" > problem. While inactive mentors a problem for individual podlings I don't > believe they are the cause of the inteference the IPMC can display when it > comes to things like podling releases. > > In other words I consider this whole thread a distraction. > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > ________________________________ > From: Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> > Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:49:29 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: A smaller IPMC > > +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 > > > > >
