The first thing I'd like to do, coordination-wise, is to call a vote on the proposal to decide things by majority. I think that this would help with some of the problems we hit, and we can meanwhile continue to discuss larger structural changes.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>wrote: > Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity > On 27 Mar 2013 20:12, "Christian Grobmeier" <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > this is a very interesting proposal. Let me ask a few questions. > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler > > <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > > > Why shouldn't the IPMC create an equivalent to the one item in the > above > > > governance structure that is missing today. That is why shouldn't it > have > > > an equivalent of "ASF Members elect a board". It would something like > IPMC > > > elect 9-15 Shepherds. These Shepherds are responsible for ensuring that > the > > > IPMC membership is heard and that decisions are made for the good of > the > > > IPMC. They approve membership of the IPMC, they approve project > > > entry/graduation/retirement but, and this is critical, they report to > the > > > IPMC. Most of the time their role is one of delegation to the PPMCs, > > > occasionally their role is to break a deadlock by listening to the IPMC > and > > > making the best decision it can. > > > > it sounds a little bit as the Shepherds would be the "true" PMC of the > IPMC. > > No. The IPMC would be the true IPMC, but they elect a representative body > to make the IPMC function more efficiently. That body remains answerable to > the IPMC. This is important because the mentors should be the ones making > recommendations about graduation, report approval etc. More importantly > only PMC members have binding votes on releases. The shepherds delegate all > this to the PPMC (and its mentors). The shepherds only act to ensure the > PPMC is capable, unhindered and healthy. > > > > > Also if we follow this, Shepherds doesn't sound so nice. Actually it > > is a kind of Board. > > Yes it is. I avoided new names to prevent the false impression that this is > adding new layers. The Shepherds already do almost everything I'm > suggesting. The only addition is for them to be the ones who break > consensus deadlocks. Why them? Because their role means they have more > visibility into the breadth of the Incubator than many IPMC members. > > > I don't think a chair should act with authority. > > Sometimes it is necessary, but I agree that it should be very rare. The > problem with the IPMC is that it is needed too frequently. My proposal, as > you observe, provides a representative group, answerable to the IPMC, to > build consensus on these occasions. > > > > > > I am still not convinced if we need another > > layer of people - or if we just minimize the IPMC and give Mentors (= > > Committers) that binding vote. > > I have no doubt that my proposal is imperfect, let's find the holes and see > if they are pluggable. > > Chris' model is similar in some ways as has been observed. I'm yet to see > how the scale problem will be solved, but maybe I'm remembering the > proposal incorrectly, > > In think a fundamental difference between Chris' radical model and mine is > revolution vs evolution. Personally I think the current IPMC model works > well 98% of the time, so evolution is appropriate, > > > > > > > Just a thought.... of course, my solution is as flawed as anyone elses > and > > > I look to the IPMC Chair to find the "good enough" solution that will > allow > > > us to move on (sorry Benson). > > > > I look to all IPMC members. > > I meant Benson should coordinate, not dictate :-) > > Thanks for your useful critique. > > Ross > > > > > Cheers > > Christian > > > > > > > > Ross > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27 March 2013 11:55, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> I suppose that as chair I ought to be heard from here. I've been off > for > > >> Passover for a bit. > > >> > > >> In my view, the IPMC manifests two problems. I'd like to label them as > > >> 'operational' and 'decision-making'. This thread is about > decision-making, > > >> but with some people seeing using terms like 'disfunctional', I think > it's > > >> important to keep 'function' in context. > > >> > > >> Operationally, we 'started' 1.3 years ago with an acute problem of > > >> under-supervised and/or 'malingering' podlings. Under Jukka's > leadership, > > >> we made a series of incremental changes that have considerably > improved the > > >> situation. On the other hand, the recent influx of many new podlings > > >> worries me, because 'improved' is not the same as 'fixed'. And I'm not > > >> entirely sure that 'fixed' is possible. I'd like to see us find more > > >> incremental changes that help further, and I'd like them to scale via > some > > >> mechanism other than my own personal time. I see this as a reason to > put > > >> more thought into shepherds and champions. But I don't see this > situation > > >> as 'disfunctional'. > > >> > > >> On the decision-making front, recent phenomena have demonstrated to me > that > > >> this group is not succeeding in applying consensus process to decision > > >> making. I could write five paragraphs on what that process is and what > it > > >> requires, but I'm not inclined to. I support the proposal here to > apply > > >> majority rules to IPMC membership. When consensus process fails here, > we > > >> have endless email threads. Many of us find these stressful, > > >> time-consuming, and disheartening. > > >> > > >> Under the proposal at hand, we'd still DISCUSS, and I'd hope that we > would > > >> all try to be thoughtful and constructive and look for ways to agree. > > >> However, after a certain amount of discussion, there would be a vote, > and > > >> that would be that. > > >> > > >> If this 'works' -- if people here find that it strikes a good balance > > >> between seeking consensus and limiting time and stress, we're good. > > >> > > >> It might not work. Or it might 'work', but some might feel that this > large, > > >> diffuse, group, operating by majority rules is either inconsistent > with > > >> Apache policy or a bad example for the podlings. In which case someone > > >> might want to dust off the proposals from 1.3 years ago that offered > more > > >> or less radical alternatives. I'm personally not ready to go there > yet. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > > >> bdelacre...@apache.org > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Justin Mclean < > justinmcl...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > ...As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in > > >> order > > >> > to become > > >> > > a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache member (see bottom of > > >> > [1])... > > >> > > > >> > you don't - Apache members can become IPMC members just by asking, > but > > >> > others can also be elected as incubator PMC members. We do have some > > >> > such mentors currently. > > >> > > > >> > -Bertrand > > >> > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Ross Gardler (@rgardler) > > > Programme Leader (Open Development) > > > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.grobmeier.de > > https://www.timeandbill.de > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > >
