Benson, Alan- Starting a new project is not aggression; it's how we try things that should fail independently. I have no interest in participating, but if you believe that we should e.g., have a small, active, junior-varsity board responsible only for overseeing and guiding new projects: write a proposal, convince people it's a good idea, and (if accepted) see how it works in practice.
These interminable discussions are simulacra of work, empty of practical consequence. Even if consensus were achieved, there is no measurable benefit. Mentors MUST be DEDICATED (sec 3.1, 3.2, 5.4g) to the project, EXCEPT when they're not, because WORK (sec 2.3b) and LIFE (sec 2.3c) may interfere up to three (3) times per (Earth) lunar cycle and this one time a SQUIRREL took out the power to my neighborhood and I couldn't sign off on a REPORT. Whatever. If you're on the IPMC, you (a) orient projects in Apache, so they can find resources (b) run through a curriculum to give them a sense of the foundation's expectations (c) let them figure out the rest themselves. Around the necessity to perform some audit before the project can release software from the ASF, there has grown a sincere, but misguided idea that most projects' dysfunction can always be traced to early, correctable errors. Even if it were true- and it isn't- it doesn't justify the bureaucracy that keeps getting layered over this first stage of a journey that's far more difficult and interesting when lived, rather than documented. If one accepts that even "mature" projects need (and have) monitoring, the leap to removing the IPMC altogether is... more of a hop. Prove this wrong; it would be genuinely instructive. Nobody suspects either of you of trying to subvert anything. I'd go further: nobody cares. An effective IPMC member is as relevant as a receptionist behind an information desk: useful to all, essential for newcomers, and forgotten by the time you reach the stairs. You have ideas for tracking people who sit at information desks, or possible training programs/documentation that would make the building easier to navigate. If that's your thing: go for it, let us know if you find anything interesting. But stop meeting where we're trying to work. The majority of the IPMC is here to help particular projects join the foundation, and this annual ritual is disruptive to that goal. -C On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 21, 2015, at 3:39 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >> <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < >>>> bdelacre...@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>> How is that different from pruning the current IPMC membership by >>>>> removing inactive members? >>>> >>>> Doing *that* would be straightforward. Take the set of mentors on currently >>>> incubating projects, add the other half dozen who review releases, and set >>>> everyone else to voluntary emeritus status. Done.... >>> >>> Agreed - but I don't see how that improves things anyway, I don't see >>> any problem caused by those inactive members. >> >> The near-ad-hominem tone of this thread has extracted a reply in my own >> defense. >> >> It is a misunderstanding, verging on willful, to claim that the V2 >> proposal is primarily intended to remove either inactive or noisy >> persons from the group. it is a fabrication that there is any idea >> that some person other than the board might select an initial set of >> people to further some particular agenda. The idea here of the small >> group, extracted from something Ross wrote on the Wiki in 2013, is >> that an incubator committee doesn't need to be big and it doesn't need >> to grow via merit, if its only job is to accept the board's delegation >> of a limited set of supervisory tasks. If you make a smaller group, it >> might still contain vigorous disagreement, but on a scale where they >> can manageably reach consensus. It would think less of the board if >> they failed to select people likely to have some significant >> disagreements. > > I resent your and Chris’ characterization of this thread. All that’s been > taking place is a frank and civil discussion of opinions as to what the > implication of some proposals mean. Your, and Chris’, attempt to > characterize them as taking on an ad-hominem tone suggest to me that we are > poking at the Achilles heal of the Iv2 proposal and Chris’ impromptu proposal > to fork the Incubator. > > At the heart of both there is a culling of IPMC members. Sure, the new IPMC > may have "Oscar Madison” and “Felix Ungar” tossed into the same bag but > that’s a distraction from the real problem that I, and maybe Bertrand, are > trying to point out. > > At the proposals' core is that there are IPMC members who want to participate > but would be left out and in the end the “problems” with the Incubator would > not be resolved since, as Chris accurately puts it, we will have distilled > dysfunction. > > But is it dysfunctional? Only when it tries to be like a school of business > and come up with new and improved processes for bringing in new projects > instead of focusing on the core problems which don’t go away, tooling and > mentor accountability. Otherwise, I think we do a pretty good job. We make > mistakes, sure, but mistakes will always be made and I think we’ve made good, > focused, incremental pivots to address their causes. > > > Regards, > Alan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
