On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > The IPMC has been incapable of any kind if action for a long time. Full > consensus is not possible, what is required is progress.
The Incubator is making plenty of progress. Day by day out on the podling lists, contributors are absorbing information and Mentors are guiding; here in the nucleus on general@, we are also finding ways to move forward. For instance: While the proposals for exit interviews and an Incubator ombud may not have panned out as expected, the discussion around them yielded a new documentation page which has gone over very well: <http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhatToExpect>. Even better, it was penned by someone who had not previously contributed to the Incubator in such a capacity: Alex Harui, who I hope we hear more from in the future. There is a perception among a small group of highly invested Incubator contributors that the IPMC is immobile. Historically, the members of this group have sent an extraordinary volume of email to general@ advocating for their favored initiatives (which typically involve restructuring the Incubator or refactoring its processes), often in highly contentious rapid-fire exchanges. It is true that such discussions often achieve little despite their extreme length; my perception is that they go nowhere because more effort goes into restating the same arguments time after time and outlasting the opposition than into trying to think outside the box and find creative solutions. The chief effect of these long, hot threads is to suck up all the oxygen in the room. In this case, Alex's contribution is going unacknowledged because we're fixated on the ombud proposal thread -- even though WhatToExpect constitutes "progress" on the very same issue of mitigating podling contributor discontent. It's unfortunate that we have allowed the obsessions of a strident few to obscure great work being done throughout the Incubator. > The minority position holders should step aside (assuming their objections > are unlikely to cause long lasting damage) or step up (assuming they have an > alternative proposal). People *have* stepped up -- Alex for starters. Then there's Dave Fisher, who argues that the proposed ombud role serves basically the same purpose as the existing institution of the "Incubator shepherds". Dave *is* a shepherd, so by his argument he's been shouldering a portion of that workload for quite some time now. Establishing an Incubator ombud is not an imperative and it is not the only way forward. The state of the current ombud proposal remains: no consensus -- and that's fine, in my opinion, even though I'm in favor. > Lets give Marvin a little space to review the thread and then lets move > forward as appropriate. -1 on "move forward as appropriate" because the chair does not have the power to overrule the objections of other IPMC members. Nevertheless, since my assistance has been requested in reviewing the thread, I'll oblige. Chris Mattmann, Roman Shaposhnik and Chip Childers were concerned about role redundancy: http://s.apache.org/rjI (mattmann) +1, the chair is already the Ombudsman. Or should be at least. No need for duplication and more overhead (and confusion). http://s.apache.org/u9 (rvs) Personally I don't see much value add over a set of active mentors + IPMC chair. http://s.apache.org/ZdQ (chipchilders) IMO, a PMC chair should both behave and be seen to the community as acting in this capacity. However, others have commented on at least the perception not being that this is the case. Given that, I'd be comfortable with this as an experiment... so +0. http://s.apache.org/zmu (mattmann) I'm not in favor of an Ombudsman. Seems like an extra layer of overhead beyond what the Chair already provides. Seriously does someone need a title in order to be the clearinghouse for folks' honest assessments of the Incubator, its personnel, or other sensitive issues? I think the best response to this is that while the IPMC chair needs to serve as a good confidante when petitioned privately, it is not obvious to people who are new to Apache that such an avenue is open to them. Having a dedicated ombud address will encourage conversations which wouldn't happen otherwise. Dave Fisher, as mentioned above, focuses on overlap between ombud and shepherds: http://s.apache.org/u3 I think we are looking for people in the IPMC who are willing to help podlings solved their real and their perceived problems. An Ombudsman is one title for someone like that and so is Shepherd. I think that there exists an ever changing group within the IPMC that in their own serves this function. These people meet at private@. Why can't a PPMC go to private@ with any issue and then someone can take care of it? My response is that we need as many shepherds as we can muster, but the role of ombud is best handled by a single individual for the sake of maximizing confidentiality and minimizing conflict of interest. Bertrand was skeptical about an ASF-wide ombud, but didn't raise any objection to an Incubator-specific position. http://s.apache.org/NAa We don't have that, and I don't think we need it - people should feel free to contact people that they trust (officers, board members, ASF members) privately if there's a need, and not having someone elected in the ombudsman role means people are free to talk to whoever they think will help. My reaction is that it probably makes sense to run an experiment with an Incubator ombud -- if it turns out we don't need one, then we conclude that the ASF at large doesn't need one either. And then there were my own objections, which have already been addressed. A separate thread started by Joe Schaefer explored what the ombud might be tasked with. http://s.apache.org/9UV 1) proactively solicits opinions of exiting podlings about their experiences in the form of interviews and surveys. 2) make anonymized results of (1) available to the IPMC on a regular basis. 3) provides advocacy and facilitates solutions for committers who report issues with their podling's mentors. Alan suggested a modification to bullet point 3 which was received +1s from JimJag and Chip Childers. http://s.apache.org/FWi provides advocacy and facilitates solutions for podling, and IPMC members, who report issues that cannot normally be solved through normal established processes. In other threads, the subject of anonymity has proven controversial, which might argue for leaving it out. To my mind that's an implementation detail, though. I suggest starting a new thread with a modified proposal that addresses or at least acknowledges some of those concerns. If there are no objections after 72 hours, go ahead. My hunch is that with JimJag as the candidate, a new proposal is unlikely to garner unyielding opposition. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
