Hi, > I think this thread misses the point of the original observation.
Several people has said the issue is that the IPMC is too big and you yourself said how IPMC members join was an issue. This email was trying to address that. Your response means I guess that you changed your mind? > What I've seen is a suggestion that active IPMC members on general@ should be > expected to be on the private list. At least one person said they should be removed. We’ve contacted them all one by one several months ago and asked them to sign up. This was mentioned in an incubator board report. We also added more moderations to the private list. A couple did sign up and a couple stood down form the IPMC, but the majority did nothing. Looking at them, most are totally inactive, the few who are slightly active occasionally do helpful things. I’m not sure we can force them to sign up. (Although I did notice one did today.) Any suggestions? > 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. Do you consider voting on releases by the IPMC to be interference? If mentors are not active how do podlings make releases if they cannot get 3 +1 mentor votes on their list? Thanks, Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
