Just to point out the obvious... On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:33 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> > 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. > A good number of us have served multiple stints on the IPMC and as our focus changed, we've asked to be furloughed emeritus, and then sent asks to rejoin to actively mentor another incubation proposal. Often to be met by "Oh, you had left? We hadn't recorded that, so you are already still-here." I'm not sure I'd trust the current roster, and a refresh of "please express interest if you are still following the Incubator project" isn't a bad idea on a very infrequent basis. Resolving how to deal with those who don't respond at all (neither "please move me to emeritus" nor "I'm still here!" come across) is an exercise left to the IPMC who are paying attention, it doesn't need to be transacted on general@ (and would be a bit of an exercise in shaming if they tried.) 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. > So, those from the original IPMC formation are recalled in an inactive and largely unaware state, as the "impartial observers", to do what, exactly? Solve problems they haven't been following and can't offer solid prescriptions for? A more focused approach might be to suspend non-members from the IPMC for a reaffirmation vote if that group has caused significant issues, but I doubt that is a useful exercise (see comments that follow...) 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. > All members have generally been welcomed as volunteer participants at the Incubator. If you want something at this scale, I'd suggest you need to scale it similarly to the board of directors. Fixed number of seats, membership-wide voting under STV. Or ad-hoc number of participants, up/down votes on individuals, which are effectively assured to all be accepted, rendering the entire activity useless. In respect to non-Member nominees, I'd suggest anyone participating at the IPMC level, not an ASF member, and not nominated now for ASF membership should receive very close scrutiny. One of two mistakes has occurred in those cases, and either mistake is a cause for concern and reflects poorly on the IPMC. > 4. Do nothing as this is not actually a problem but instead address other > underlying issues. e.g. lack of mentor engagement. > IPMC membership has nothing to do with mentor engagement. If you are trying to diagnose mentorship, then you need to start over with a mentorship discussion. If mentors participating at the IPMC don't correlate to their mentor engagement with their podlings, that's something to address. Changing the IPMC composition has no impact on such a problem.
