On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> We need one set who are 'incubator people' and another who are 'mentors'.
Disenfranchising mentors and hoarding power within a small circle of IPMC
aristocrats is both unworkable and hypocritical.
* It is unworkable because the people who watch over the IP clearance
process and subsequently endorse incubating releases must follow the
podling day-to-day and must be empowered with binding votes. Superficial
review by freelance IPMC members is useful but cannot substitute for close
supervision.
* It is hypocritical because the IPMC needs to recognize and reward merit if
we expect podlings to do likewise.
> The incubator *is* broken (but not necessarily beyond repair).
I don't see the clashes in the IPMC's immediate past as arising from
structural defects -- we experienced ordinary personnel issues which could
have happened to any project. The IPMC's size wasn't even much a factor,
since none of our dormant members played any part in prolonging the conflicts.
> Judging the success of any new structure will be easy: does it create peace
> and quiet (and more effective working) like the breakup of the PRC did??
The Incubator has two acute, serious problems.
1. First releases are too hard.
2. Mentor attrition.
The first problem is being addressed by building consensus around clarified
release approval criteria. The second problem is being addressed by making it
easier to recruit outstanding podling contributors to serve on the IPMC.
In my view, the various radical approaches being proposed either do not help,
actively hinder, or add a lot of work and uncertainty -- so for the time
being, I'd rather work to improve the current system. I'll only join the
revolution if the incremental improvements are blocked.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
