Personally, I would find IPMC issues much easier to follow if we all
limited threads to more specific topics, and started new threads for new
specific topics. This one is still pretty buried.
On 3/29/2013 1:11 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
...
I don't accept that using yourself as an example of how we can find
sufficient mentors for all new entries is evidence that your proposal will
scale and thus address the concerns I have expressed. You are not a typical
mentor, most of us need sleep.
This is a critical point. Not only does it show that Chris has a high
bus factor (although he's no Sam, that's for sure), it's also wildly
unrepresentative of the average ASF Member, or in fact any likely
Incubator area contributor.
I don't believe this topic needs debating as I don't believe the incubation
process is broken. Your proposal doesn't actually solve the core problems
of whether policy says this or that or whether best practice is this or
that - which ultimately is the only thing the IPMC gets bogged down in.
Your proposal simply moves all the hard parts to the membership and thus to
the board. Moving problems does not solve them.
I'll just offer one general commentary here. It feels like a lot of
discussion recently has gone into the minutiae of decision making rules.
What it feels like we need are both 1) more shepherds who are
*predictably* active at assisting with their podlings and getting
well-written reports in shape, and 2) more direct leadership that seeks
basic consensus on very specific and clear new changes, but doesn't let
discussions get weighed down with too many options, or stalled by a
relative handful of -0s.
1) here is critical, and... I don't know how to get more predictably
active people, but that's exactly what I've been trying to say with "we
need to grow more organizational volunteers" in my board statements.
2) is simply a reflection (and perhaps a not thoroughly thought through
one) of the reality that we've shown we're bad at scaling
*organizational* decision making to the Membership scale. (Note that
this is different than *technical* decision making.)
An analogy is the success of the three VP positions reborn from the
fiery demise of the PRC. The PRC had every interested member trying to
help drive everything, but rarely finishing things. The current three
VPs each work with interested members for backup and advise, but
fundamentally are responsible as individuals for covering their areas to
the board.
- Shane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
