On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > 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.
I believe this is simply a matter of training and mentor oversight. If a podling required three Members to sign off, and the report required your points... then we (the Board) might actually have better insight than some TLPs. The Board has 50+ reports to review each month. Thankfully, there hasn't been much push back on that yet. We seem to be keeping up (the shepherd/comment system helps us). Throwing in some podlings shouldn't upset us, as it actually drops the [giant] Incubator report down to (maybe?) empty. >> 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. If we alter the incoming-project mechanism, then yes: maybe we *should* expect the Directors to read the reports with a little more attention. But if we demand that N ASF Members track the podling, and approve the report, then sure... the Board may be able to delegate/slack a little bit on those reports. Point is: the Incubator is not the only solution here. Think about other options. Maybe the Board can accept the podling, and designate some pseudo-VPs to be held responsible? >> 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. Agreed! And this is a very important point that seems to be left behind a bit. I would counter that the IPMC doesn't tend to satisfy this oversight/educational role consistently well. In the end, it simply depends upon the Mentors' attention. There are very few (none?) solutions to that basic problem. >... Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
