On Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 07:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > 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, Just to clarify - I am attempting to clarify the problem, not posit a specific solution. I did not suggest that responsibility for voting should rest with a smaller group - clearly voting rests with those close to the project - we agree there. Also, I'm not suggesting we need a revolution, just that we need to recognise that there are structural issues, and to explore the nature of the problem. The better we can do that, the easier finding incremental solutions that everyone can put themselves behind will happen. I'd say your two issues are definitely worth consideration. Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
