On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:20 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: >> >> "Disbanding" the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the >> problem. > > That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem, > so little wonder you are confused. > > Disbanding the IPMC, and making PPMC contributors part of their own > committees, gives them voices in a process that they are locked out of. > > One recent response was to hand pick a select few of the PPMC contributors > who went above and beyond, and give these exalted few individual membership > in the IPMC, so their votes would be binding.
And who said the IPMC had to fix the problem that way? Why is making a podling effectively a TLP with a PMC that reports to the board and a VP of incubation the only way to fix this? What is preventing us from allowing the PPMC to have much more control over what they do while preserving the IPMC? The rule that says a PMC created by the board has to have 3 votes for a release? This seems like a sledgehammer approach to fix that. After all, all the bylaws say about this is the PMC chair "shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for which the committee is responsible." It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a PPMC to have binding votes. > > But Roy has always been fond of saying that if you are creating the code > you should be the one with voting privileges. All of 'you'. > > Making each 'podling' an actual committee, with additional restrictions > due to their 'freshness' and new exposure to ASF culture, gives the core > of each new podling the voice and authority to act on their own code. While each podling should be an actual committee, there is no reason they can't be sub-committees of the IPMC with the authority that has been delegated to them. > > And /that/ is the problem that we are trying to solve ;) I agree with that. I think everyone is saying it is stupid to require mentors to be IPMC members. So fix that. I'd prefer a structure where every PPMC had active and qualified mentors to help with community building and performing a release, and without having to go to the IPMC to add new committers or get a release approved. The purpose of the IPMC would then be to make sure each podling had active and qualified mentors, to add new podlings or terminate dead podlings and recommend graduation to the board. The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes the problem to the board, which is IMO not what they should be having to deal with. Ralph
