On Jan 19, 2015, at 1:47 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> at this point we have had a few lively threads >> discussing three somewhat different proposals: >> #1 mentor re-boot >> #2 pTLP >> #3 Ross's strawman http://s.apache.org/8eS >> it feels to me that all three need additional work >> to be done before we can have any reasonable >> consensus around them (let alone voting). >> >> Wearing my chair hat, I would like to suggest that >> the next step should be: for each proposal we identify >> points that are going to block consensus (AKA would >> result in -1 vote if it comes to a vote). I suggest we >> do it on the wiki pages themselves (I'll wikify Ross's >> proposal tonight). Not editing the wikis but simply >> collecting this feedback as the last section in each >> proposal. The idea would be to identify all such >> points in a week or so. >> >> Sounds good? > > To follow up. Each of the proposals: > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Strawman > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2 > > now has the feedback gathering section at the end. > I am done with my personal feedback. Please provide > yours. > > Here's the criteria you can apply when deciding whether > to spend time on this or not: imagine that the proposal > the way it is written were to come to a vote. If at that point > you'd be inclined to vote -1 -- please let us know NOW. > > Using a VOTE thread as a forcing function for folks to > provide feedback would be *really* unfortunate. > > Also, please try to keep 'deal breakers' section as small > as possible (pushing all the non-critical piece of your > feedback to the 'suggestions' section). When in doubt > (even if it is -0) -- make it go to suggestions. > > The only items that belong to 'dealbreakers' are the ones > that would *strongly* motivate you to vote -1
I am -1 on all of these and that is unlikely to change. I just don't think that the Incubator is as broken as all the reformers think. I think that the Incubator works for most podlings. I think that these proposals do more harm than good. This feeling is visceral and I really don't care to articulate it more or to continually debate. Perhaps there are one or two good ideas in the proposals, but change does not need to be as jarring. For example the IPMC ought to confirm with mentors if they are still being a mentor to a particular podling. There can be many reasons why not and we just need to ask. It could be that the podling never achieved a visible development community. We should stop being abstract with blanket statements and we should be looking at specifics. When the IPMC looks directly things happen - sometimes the podling is brought to life, sometimes retired and sometime on life support. Statements like shepherds dilute mentor responsibility are false. A shepherd provides a mechanism for the IPMC to review the Podling/Mentor relationship. This is something the IPMC needs to do when voting to graduate a podling. We should be ALL be doing shepherding work. Rather than spend the effort on this - review some of the troublesome podlings. Regards, Dave > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
