On May 11, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Violating my 24 hour rule just this one, and worse yet to repeat myself: IMO, I think this is fine so long as it occurs on the weekend. :) > +1 Joe, Ross, etc. > > I rather regret mentioning the direct launch alternative in my most > recent email. We have some weakness in _mentoring_, Agreed. > and more weakness > in _supervising_ (or at least in documenting supervision). Could tooling help here? > We have a > few competing proposals for changes to address these, especially > supervision weakness. Is the reporting problem the sole issue? > I wish that I felt confident as Joe does that > just electing more people from inside the projects was all we needed > to do; maybe Alan's idea combined with that is the way to go. I'm not sure which way to go but I'm really liking the direction of this email. I feel that I'm getting a sense of what you feel are the core problems we're trying to solve. > Recently we had a situation on private where I felt that there was a > consensus to be had, but some people needed to be nudged a bit to > allow it to emerge. That's not what I see here when considering the > choices of using more or less of shepherds, champions, and mentors. I think that a lot of members didn't read it, thinking that there was yet another email storm to ignore. This was the point that I was trying to make in my earlier emails. *It is the constant churning of roles and processes that is exhausting this IPMC, not the actual work.* It is this bureaucratic churning that's sapping the emotional energy if the IPMC members. Why are we "churning"? Because we are not holding members/mentors up to their commitments. Because we are constantly coming up w/ new ad hoc exceptions for every policy we have. We need less process. Less roles. More accountability. More tooling. > One possible path is that, at some point, I as VP pick one. I plan to > let this discussion continue for at least a week, if not more, before > I remotely consider taking that step. Ultimately we voted you in to be our VP. I feel that you are listening to our concerns. I'll support what ever your decision is even if I don't agree. > I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in > the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative > should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message. What this "direct to PMC" model? Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
