On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem > > either. We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again later > > if a community wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave and > > then join again. > > > > > > Some context, over 300 projects have gone through the incubator, 50 are > > there currently, each requires a champion and 3 mentors at the start (all > > IPMC members), even with some mentors working on multiple podling it's not > > surprising the IPMC is 300 people or so. Nor should it be that a large > > number of them are inactive as most of the projects they were involved in > > have graduated (or retired). > > > > +1 > > > > > But despite this some still think it is an issue so we IMO we should > > address it, unless they change their minds, and say so here. > > > > Personally, I don't think that is a reason to reduce the IPMC count. > > I think it needs to be established WHY it is thought to be an issue first. > > > > It encourages drive-by bikeshedding. "I'm an IPMC Member from a few years > back. I see $foo, and OMG need to comment on it." > > Did anybody stop and read the concerns recently raised to the Board? Much > of the focus on that email was about such drive-by commenting. > > Thus, reduce the opportunity for drive-by.
Since the general@ list is public, I don't think reducing the IPMC will stop comments. > Please stop making excuses to keep the status quo. That is pretty much > everything that I've seen since that email. > > -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
