Chris,
Individuals who contribute to Podlings are doing so as mentors and members
of theY IPMC. There is nothing in the Director role that says they are
required to do so.
You can add me to that list of people who have mentored projects in the
last year (I've been part of something like 7 graduating podlings this
year). In every case I did so as an IPMC member. Doing so did not increase
my responsibilities to other podlings.
I do not understand why you are listing peoples engagement in individual
podlings as evidence that Directors have not delegated oversight of
podlings to the IPMC. It simply is not true, two directors have told you
this, as have multiple IPMC members.
Nobody, that I can see, is proposing another layer in the IPMC. You are
proposing moving a layer to the board (although you don't accept that will
be an outcome). I've suggested refining the decision making process. In the
meantime Benson *has* refined the decision making process and the IPMC
seems to have agreed to it.
Let's focus on whether ComDev and the IPMC want to share some
responsibilities.
Ross
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 1 Apr 2013 05:31, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> majority vote vs consensus)
>
> >On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> >
> >Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
> >huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
>
> Yep this is the sticking point where we disagree -- b/c I disagree with
> that.
> 2 tasks are not a huge range. Also my table of responsibilities in the
> proposal [1]
> I believe clearly specifies where any responsibility is shifted and not
> one of
> them is the Board. So I've enumerated at least the concerns of myself and
> many others about
> a range of tasks, and addressed them (for well over a year). I've heard
> zero feedback
> from you about what's wrong with my table, and what I've missed, what
> could be improved
> and have heard nothing but "it's wrong" (paraphrased) or "it doesn't cover
> all the tasks
> that of course will get dropped on the Board"? I've done the work to
> document
> my thoughts. You don't get to then just keep telling me it's wrong without
> specifying
> what precisely is wrong about it.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> 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, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
> >active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
> >should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
>
> Actually it should be expected -- there is a reason that people like Jim
> mentored AOO -- people like Sam joined in, and so did Greg with AOO and
> Bloodhound (all 3 are directors). There is a reason that Bertrand has been
> very active in the Incubator with Flex and other recent projects. Same as
> Rich with Allura -- Roy helps a lot too with clarifications when needed.
> I've seen more than a handful of emails from Brett Porter too, so he's
> definitely around.
> So, sorry Directors too pay just as much attention to PPMCs and to the
> Incubator based on their
> own individual Incubator and Director hats, and based on their reporting.
>
> >
> >
> >> 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).
> >
> >
> >I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board reports
> >are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within the
> >foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
> >board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly board
> >report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.
> >
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >No, I do not agree there is a grave problem. I have denied that
> >repeatedly.
> >The IPMC has problems, but in the main it works extremely well.
>
> Fine you don't think it's grave. I don't care how it's classified
> ('grave',
> 'purple', 'pink', 'yellow', whatever). There is a problem is what I
> probably
> should have said.
>
> Look, I hear you that, it's probably possible that folks can come up with
> even yet another layer beyond the Shepherds, etc., and that that can goad
> people into thinking stuff is fixed around here. Jukka's work was great,
> and
> I applaud him for it, but as I said at the time, to me we're just adding
> more
> and more layers to the onion, instead of stripping it down to its roots and
> core.
>
> Also it's possible that if you guys continue to add layers, and suggest
> mechanisms
> for organizing those that are active around here, I may just go back to my
> merry
> way of getting podlings through the Incubator, graduated, and taught in
> the ASF
> way.
>
> But it's also possible that the existence of this super/meta committee and
> its
> super awesome badges that many of the folks here are just too blind to
> give them up
> will wain on individuals.
>
>
> >
> >[..snip..]
> >The first of these two roles is, for the most part, where the IPMC can
> >sometimes reach stagnation and can become extremely confusing to podlings
> >(getting multiple answers for one question for example). Maybe it is time
> >to move this to ComDev and take that area of conflict away from the IPMC.
> >This would leave the IPMC to focus on providing the oversight that Jukka's
> >new processes have started to heal and Benson is now fine-tuning.
>
> I suggested this in my proposal -- and also creating
> http://incubation.apache.org/
> which is home to all the documentation/processes, etc. This is step #1
> in my proposal BTW (moving to ComDev).
>
> Also note the section titled:
>
> Use Cases for Future Incubator Documentation Requests to ComDev
>
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
