As far as I understand your comment, Ant, you mean to say that he problem is that there is too much variation in opinion and approach. (Primarily, I understand, in relation to releases.)
This doesn't seem related to the size of the PMC, to me. We're always going to need a large pool of people with the ability to cast binding votes on releases. (Just because of the effort involved.) So whether those people are on the PMC or whether we allow non-PMC mentors to exist and have binding votes — it makes no difference. We still end up with a large pool of people with wildly diverging approaches and world-views. That seems like a different sort of problem to me. Perhaps a documentation problem. Perhaps the recent suggestion to spin out the documenting of policy and guidelines to ComDev — or some proposal like it — could improve that situation. The problem seems larger than the Incubator in any case. I get the strong impression that from TLP to TLP, people are doing things very differently. (And this is where our mentors are recruited from.) On 2 April 2013 11:16, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > What I was trying to do with this particular thread is to identify the > > problems the incubator has before deciding on solutions. If we can get a > > common agreement on that, specific solutions will be much easier for us > > all to accept. > > > > So, my question to you is are you able/willing to articulate the > > problems do you see the incubator as having, that need to be solved? > > That is, without (yet) suggesting how it should be fixed? > > > > I'd be very curious to hear how you see it. > > > > Upayavira > > > > > This is what i think is a big part of the problem: > > The PMC is so big and diverse, and made up of people who just join by > choice not by being invited, and sometimes they don't even care about the > PMC they just join to mentor their poddling, so there isn't so much sense > of respect or working together. Those people all have different points of > view and expectations on how things should happen, some are liberal while > some are more conservative, and the set of people who are active varies > over time. > > So what that means is it can be hard to tell what the reaction will be to > any particular action, and when something unexpected happens its > understandable that sometimes someone is going to get surprised or upset. > > Take voting on a release as an example, sometimes that will get three quick > +1s with minimal review, sometimes it will take weeks of pleading for > votes, sometimes a problem will be pointed out but people will still vote > +1 anyway, sometimes it will be +1'd with a request to fix the issue later, > other times it will be demanded that a respin is done to fix the issue. > Theres no way of knowing really, it just depends who happens to be around > and active at the time. > > And the same thing happens for just about every situation where there is > some rule or policy or guideline documented. > > There are things I think we could do to fix some of that, but i agree with > Upayavira, we would need some common understanding and agreement on what > the issues are first. > > ...ant > -- NS
