On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
That is the key issue. I can name many really good mentors. The problem is that prior to the new processes introduced by Jukka we had a great many projects that stagnated because of inattentive mentoring. The current IPMC reporting process picks those up and addresses them internally within the IPMC. This is the reason that we have seen more podlings graduate in the last year. If we remove that aspect of the IPMCs oversight then who will catch these projects that don't have mentors actively looking after them? It will be the boards responsibility to do that. I contest that this does not scale. We need a solution that will scale appropriately whilst also removing the inefficiencies introduced by a large IPMC. >> 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. > In principle this is fine, but in principle the IPMC already demands that N ASF Members track the podling so what is changing? > > 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? > OK. This seems to be similar to my overlapping proposal in a different message to allow the board to sponsor podlings. Are we onto something here? > > >> 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. > > I don't think I fully agree with that today (12 months ago I would agree). The shepherding process has caught a great many situations where mentors are inattentive and has addressed them directly. II do agree it can be further improved (hence my original proposal as one way of doing this). Ross
