Benson, I will remind the IPMC that seven months ago the specter of retirement was raised. A lengthy discussion ensued. Consensus was garnered. We even added committers with the hopes of infusing new energy into the project.
Sometimes, you just can't get ultimate consensus on retirement and you have to resolve issues with a vote. By *all* of the PPMC members admission, they have no time to work on this project. Eric simply wanted to wait a while and hope for some miracle to happen. If Eric and other PPMC members had the time to do the work, we wouldn't be where we are today. Regards, Alan On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:48 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > One interesting point about consensus decision-making process is the > need to define the starting point. The process assumes that there is a > clear 'status quo', and that a consensus is required to change it. > This may not always be the appropriate way to think about retiring a > podling, but it's clearly the way we're thinking about this one. > > Does anyone else feel that this could have benefitted from a [DISCUSS] > before the [VOTE]. > > At the bottom line, if there are new mentors to be fully responsible, > I think it's reasonable to continue; however, I don't want to have > exactly the same conversation in N months. Would the new mentors like > to propose a time limit, and is the group willing to subscribe to the > notion that, if after that time, the new mentors have the same report > as the old mentors, we're at the end? > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Bernd Fondermann > <bernd.fonderm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'd hope we can demonstrate finding consensus rather than using the vote to >>> resolve this. >>> >>> I still think forced retirement doesn't seem the right thing in this case >>> so my -1 stands. In the other thread Alan now seems open to giving them >>> another try, i've offered to help with that (any other offers of help?), >>> what have we got to lose with trying that? >> >> "forced"? No, not really. Chukwa reported low activity and discussions >> about closing down for months to the IPMC. >> >> Only because the IPMC as a whole is getting involved only *now* >> doesn't make it more likely for the project to change. >> >> However, if the IPMC reaches consensus to continue Chukwa, I'm in. >> What will happen is that attention falls back to chukwa-dev and we're >> where we were one week ago. >> >> But again, I'm ready to continue. >> >> Bernd >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >
