+1 I'd also suggest that the below is a partial answer to the board's questions to the IPMC on how it would improve oversight so it should probably go in our report.
cheers, Leo On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> What I would like to see is the Incubator start identifying PPMCs that >> are stalled, and to consider what information they need (in future >> reports) to help them (us) make such a determination. I am not >> suggesting that this be made retroactive. Or that it be done >> immediately. A plan would be fine: i.e., setting a date by which the >> IPMC will have decided what information needs to be in such reports, >> and a schedule by which the PPMCs need to start providing said >> information. > > My suggestion is to ask the podlings now in category 2 to report again > in May on their progress on the identified blockers. If there's been > no measurable progress by then, we'll dig deeper to see what we can > do. Podlings reporting in other months can be picked up for a similar > oversight cycle over the coming months. By July we should then have a > pretty accurate record of progress throughout the entire Incubator, > including a clear list of podlings that are stuck and need help. > > Before the next quarterly report I'd rely on mentors to help the > podlings identify and implement ways to move forward. And of course, > if a podling or its mentors feel that more help is needed, asking on > general@ or submitting an extra report is always a good idea. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
