On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >... >> It all seemed very rushed. Perhaps we need a clearer schedule in advance. > > A series of reminders go out via Marvin long in advance. And then, a few > days before the board's deadline, I state the latest possible time for me > to post it to svn to give people as much time as possible.
Right. The Board schedule is known. Marvin sends reminders. What more do people need? "I'm responsible for my podling. Really, I am. But I cannot do diddly shit unless Mommy and Daddy take care of me, and tell me what to do." Boo fucking hoo. Get it together. This isn't difficult. And most podlings/PMCs only have to report once per quarter. If one person takes it upon themselves, then you're talking about (say) one hour out of TWO THOUSAND to write up a report. Then, you take 72 hours to pass it by dev@ and see what they think. One. Out of Two Thousand. The Foundation isn't asking for much here. Just for a person to step up. For 0.05% of their life. (speaking as an ex-Chairman who had to deal with missing reports continually; Marvin helped a great deal, but I'm still amazed at people simply not stepping up and recognizing their responsibility; life *does* get in the way sometimes, and reports *do* get missed, but DO NOT blame the system -- take responsibility that you failed; I have missed Apache Subversion reports, but I never blame others; it's all on me; then I step up and report the following month) > I wait until very late in the cycle to create commentary in the front so > that (a) the rest of the community gets the first opportunity to create > that content, and (b) it can reflect the content of the late-arriving > podling reports. Benson: you are the liaison. You are not responsible for everybody. The PMC as a whole is responsible. And the podling communities are responsible for their reporting. >... >> You seem to have abandoned shepherd appointments. Blaming the system again. Remember: the shepherd concept is a *band-aid* to help cover failing podlings/mentors. Blaming the second-level solution is insanity. >... >> My real issue has nothing to do with whether changes were made before or >> after and is more to do with my surprise that the board accepted such an >> incomplete report. We accept that failures occur. We accept that what *has* been provided seems a reasonable reflection of the communities involved. If the Incubator *regularly* provided substandard reports, or large swaths of missing podling reports, *then* you can damned well believe the Board would reject the report. And for such an important piece of the Foundation, you can believe we'd take more serious action. The Board is very cognizant of what goes on the Incubator, and the untold details behind the reports. We knew this month's report was substandard, and we gave it a little pass for various reasons. And yes, we also talked a bit about how people are questioning the setup of the Incubator. If you want to know more about the Board's thoughts on reports, then attend the meeting. Until you do, then "surprise" should not be in your vocabulary. >... >> There was nothing much written about the state of various podlings. >> Nothing was mentioned about podlings like ODF Toolkit's failure to report. > > I could dig you out specific commentary from community members (I think > including at least one current board member) to the effect that the best > way to report that a podling didn't report was to simply have the report > contain their lack of a report. Right. We're well aware of missing reports. Calling them out is helpful, but not mandatory. >... Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
