On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:42 AM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg, > > Would you categorize yourself as one of these drive-by kibitzers? > Nope. I don't interact/meddle with podlings, but stick to meta/process issues within the Incubator. Somewhat recently, I worked with Fineract and Mynewt as a Mentor, but have not volunteered for mentoring since their graduations (my non-work/volunteer time goes to supplement my work time in Infra). Certainly, I grant you that I may have written a poor email, that randomized a podling. I've tried to avoid such podling-specific emails, but may have missed. If something sticks out, then I'd like to hear, so I can fix going forward. I've been subscribed to private@ since it was created in October 2002. Ken Coar was the first subscribed to the list, and I got subscribed about 5 minutes later. My concern is about those who use their IPMC membership for the drive-bys (the issue that instigated this discussion), yet they aren't subscribed and *participating* as an IPMC Member for its entire host of activities and responsibilities for guiding new communities into the ASF. Maybe that intersection is zero, but I still see no reason to keep people on the IPMC if they won't subscribe to private@ Cheers, -g On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:42 AM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Greg, > > Would you categorize yourself as one of these drive-by kibitzers? > > > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:55 AM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:17 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > So? It is to reduce the number of people who feel empowered to meddle > into > > everything every podling does. You want to fix general@ ??, then go > ahead. > > I want to see people who choose not to *participate* in the IPMC [by > > subscribing to private@] dropped from the roster. The whole world can > chat > > on general@. But if you want to be *part* of the IPMC, and want a > binding > > vote, and want to really throw-in on Incubator matters, then you damned > > well better subscribe. > > > > The basic structure of 200+ people all having "merit" to jump into a > > podling's pond is a priori broken. We have *specific* feedback that this > is > > true. Not a guess. Not some survey. A "letter" signed by numerous > > individuals that this is the case. So until the Incubator decides its > basic > > structure is Wrong(tm), and stops pushing back against that feedback, > then > > what is a simple reversible change to try and disempower the knuckleheads > > who want to throw in, on the good work done by our podlings? ... Right. > > Trim the IPMC. > > > > -g > > >
