On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > The Incubator has two acute, serious problems. > > 1. First releases are too hard.
No surprise. This is incredible hard to read: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html and contains 88 TODOs. > 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. If we make other people easier to join, we *need* to make a regular health check on projects. I already proposed the "miss to sign your reports 2x times and we ask you if you are still there" process. > 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. Being sceptic makes sense of course. Radical changes are coming with a risk. That said, I totally appreciate what Upayavira wrote and bascially support the idea of separating out mentors from the IPMC. I have heard a few people say they "just want to mentor, without the rules discussion crap" (see ml). Thats perfectly OK. But what do we need them on the IPMC? The argument is, we want binding votes. I believe we can give them binding votes without being on the IPMC. We now seem to have 3/4 majority vote on new people. That helps with easier recruiting. Now lets do the "miss to sign" process and actively work on the release guide. If that doesn't help we can become more radical. Cheers Christian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
