On 17 Aug 2010, at 03:53, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's optimized for success while making mentors potentially responsible for > failure (iow a project with crappy mentors will fail no matter how much they > grok apache). Still have doubts about escalating the graduation decision to > the board. > I don't see this proposal replacing the IPMC. The project can turn there for help if they choose (eg our mentors are absent). I see the IPMC role becoming more of a training ground for mentors than a police force. > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:31, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com> > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 10:00:40 PM > Subject: RE: Radical revamp (was: an experiment) > > Greg Stein wrote: > > Using this model decentralizes the process > > So does having 3+ PMC Members today. > > To me this is a common flaw in both how the IPMC operates today and how > Greg's proposal relies on 3 Members to get anything accomplished. If > you've been paying attention to what actually happens in this PMC over > time, you can't possibly have missed all the begging for votes that > goes on. > > Reliance on 3 overworked people who are typically not podling committers > to always be there when the project needs them is both unrealistic and > doesn't scale. We've been doing it for years, inflicting massive > pain on the podlings whenever they release or want new committers, > and it sucks. That's what my experiment aims to fix. > > I hear you, and I think that *if* you have 3+ *active* ASF Members, > then my approach will dramatically improve the process. Also, those > Members in the hot seat are going to be more active because they > *know* they're on the hook. There is nobody to "pass the buck" to. > They are part of the reports to the Board ("One of our PMC Members, > John Doe, has been absent."). If a project has the support, then this > gets the "second-guessing" of the IPMC and the second-level of > unnecessary "oversight" out of the way. It directly introduces the > project to its future place within the organization. > > Cheers, > -g > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org