I believe there is a minor typo below: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 17:00, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: >> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes >>>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t >>>> thoughts/positioning below. >>> >>> While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to >>> operate, do we the name of a potential chair who is ready, willing, >>> and able to execute on such? >> >> Chris is clearly willing, he authored the plan. > > I may be misreading or not following, but I see the original (now > elided) description as being at least subtly different than what Chris > is proposing. > > What we currently have is a Incubator. The board sees the list of > members of that PMC as those who oversee the entire project. The > Incubator sees the list of members of itself as mentors to various > podlings who need not have any additional role. > > I saw what Bill described as fixing that by more closely aligning what > the Incubator sees itself with how the Board sees the incubator. The > net effect would be a much smaller list of IPMC members. > > I see what Chris described as reducing the IPMC members to zero. > > There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead > of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator > playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press > or...). In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the > PPMC to work with this group.
^^ should be IPMC, I believe. (and FWIW, this is the model that I believe we should move to; in a couple years, we may find this new-IPMC can be phased out, but I'd like to see the new model well-tested first) > > This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would > continue indefinitely. > > This (at least to me) doesn't seem to be something that Chris is signing up > for. > >> Moreso, there are those of us who would support him in execution of >> such an effort. > > +1 > >> But is he willing to stay the 6 months beyond dissolving the IPMC as the >> VP, Project Incubation if the board believes such a post is necessary, >> particularly if the board hasn't convinced him of its value? I can't >> answer for him, but I trust there will be enough participants for the >> board to select a different individual if 1) it wants that post beyond >> dissolution of "IPMC", and 2) Chris can't bring himself to continue. > > "hasn't convinced him of its value" is evidence that what you are > describing is different than what Chis is proposing. Hence, my > question: is there anybody willing to sign up for what you are > describing? I ask this is something I would support. > >> That particular inflection point is quite a ways down the road, even >> in the fastest of plans to begin adopting "Foo Project, Incubating" TLPs. > > I'm not so sure. Chris is talking about reducing the Incubator to > zero in a matter of months. > > - Sam Ruby > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
