I absolutely agree with Greg Stein. I can't find any single reason to keep unsubscribed members of IPMC in the roster. These members can be asked to subscribe, and if they do, then ok; if don't - it is perfectly ok to remove.
Similarly, I don't see reasons for having inactive TLP PMC members. I've suggested the same change in Apache Ignite, but I don't clearly understand why remained members resisting this change. пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 09:58, Ross Gardler <r...@gardler.me>: > That's right Greg. And since we are filling in gaps for people... > > I was originally against the pTLP concept (though I supported the > experiments) or any of the derivatives that came from it. I think I have > changed my position. Largely based on the fact that every single project > I've discussed the ASF with in the last 3-5 years has had a very inaccurate > perception of how the ASF works. I believe a large part of this is due, in > part, to the issues being discussed in this thread. > > I do not understand how a foundation which prides itself in having very > little bureaucratic red tape can be seen as having so much red tape. The > projects I talk to just want to build software. It used to be that the ASF > focused on running the legal and operational aspects of the foundation > projects and developers on projects wrote code. I'm not sure that's true > anymore. > > We need to fix it. > > I look forward to hearing how the IPMC will seek to strip down the > bureaucracy and get back to mentoring the incoming projects on how the ASF > is structured so they can get (relatively) quick and clear answers to their > questions. > > Ross > > ________________________________________ > From: Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 10:19 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy > general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling > ... release candidates)) > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ross Gardler <r...@gardler.me> wrote: > > > If a podling is a committee in its own right then it can be empowered to > > act on behalf of the board and this its releases can be an act of the > > foundation. > > > >... > > > Podlings would only become full TLPs once they have demonstrated their > > ability to do formal releases. > > > > The above pair of concepts was offered in $priorCycle as "provisional TLPs" > (pTLP). I believe the idea ended when Sam pointed out that if a pTLP is > trusted, then why not just call it a TLP and trust it to label its releases > appropriately? Thus, just create TLPs immediately for a "podling" > > [ I know Ross knows this; but for $others who may want to look at > historical proposals, and compare/contrast to current discussion ... search > for "pTLP" ] > > Cheers, > -g > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
