Hi Benson,
-----Original Message----- From: Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 8:02 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus) >>[..snip..] > >Chris M observes, if I may parody, that it's 'just like' the >discredited umbrella projects, and proposes to fix this by making >podlings even more like the standard model -- each one a TLP >supervised by The Board. That's one part of it. [..snip..] > > >I think that any alternative has to specifically address the alternate >legal structure. Who votes on releases? Who votes on karma? I >personally don't have a problem with a plan in which the incubator >isn't really a PMC at the end of the day. One way to combine Ross and >Chris is to say, 'well, the Board could decide that it can't watch 22 >nascent projects, so it's delegated that to a committee. Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22 nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs? And if they are not then I call b. to the s. -- we ask the podlings to start operating like TLPs on day 1 -- we ask the mentors to do the same -- and to teach the PPMC that. Yet, the board isn't watching them in the same way? Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him. I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary at the top of the Incubator report). That's at least one other Director (there were probably more since there was consensus on the podling specific reports not going away when it was discussed) that IMHO watches the podlings the same way as the TLPs are watched. And, why is it so hard to see that the "Board" may watch, but in the end, it's on the specific committees ('podling' as we currently call them or 'PPMC' or otherwise [TLP]) to manage their stuff? The Board is the "bazooka", the "elephant gun", remember? That's why we're still here discussing ad nauseum this topic a year later -- because to bazooka the Incubator would be some monuments event, similar to the bazooka, of PRC, etc. -- something that's discussed at ApacheCon over beer about the 'old ways' and 'can you believe when that happened, wow??!'. In the end, it's not a monuments event. As Upayavira said, life went on in PRC, in the sub committees; Apache went on. What I've done is suggest [in the Apache vein], what is IMO, a logical, incremental (and even potentially reversible) "next step". Upayavira's latest email on this was right -- he sees that the Incubator is broken, and perhaps it needs to be split into smaller, separate committees. Ross is right too -- maybe something else needs to be elected in the form of a committee (his shepherds) to watch the incoming projects. My point is -- great -- I can't see the forrest through the trees on the answer to that question yet. What i can see, and what I think even Upayavira and Ross agree with -- and you too Benson -- is that there is a grave problem here and it needs' a fixin'. My deconstruction proposal does that. I've suggested a logical next step to fixing it -- don't let the wacko committee try and "fix itself". That's like asking an insane asylum to form a committee for how it will itself. Besides the insanity, they are naturally in a conflict of interest state. Instead, I'm proposing, rubble the asylum, transition delegation and authority if only temporarily until some next step proposal can be agreed upon and discussed without the inmates. >[..snip..] Cheers, Chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org