I feel the real issue may be not the number of inactive IPMCs, but the number of active IPMCs. It might be helpful to make sure each project has enough active IPMCs.
>From this point of view, the issue with many inactive IPMCs is that it seems like a project has enough IPMCs so there is no urgent to vote for more IPMC members, but in fact there are only few active IPMCs. On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:55 PM Furkan KAMACI <furkankam...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > +1 for #4 > > I think that we should focus on what is the underlying reason. I suggest > starting a new thread to point for such purpose. We need to address the > problem for both newcomers and long-standing members. For example, I > personally think that it is not fluid at some points how incubator works, > what is the general flow of a mentor's task, how to verify a release for a > newcomer. As another example, there are many people who know what is a > majority vote ( > https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval) but does > not know `which requires a majority vote and which lazy consensus ( > https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus) So, such > lack of knowledge may prevent people to engage with the community. > > We can start a poll about detecting underlying problems (both for getting > feedback and try to understand the knowledge level). Also, these may be > addressed via Apache Training (how to maintain an open source project - > Apache/non-Apache). > > However, since this is another topic, as I suggested we should talk about > it at another thread. > > Kind Regards, > Furkan KAMACI > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:27 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > >
