+1, the chair is already the Ombudsman. Or should be at least. No need for duplication and more overhead (and confusion).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Date: Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:52 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman >This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical >counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide >themselves. > >Sent from my iPhone > >On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> >wrote: > >> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity >> On 15 Jun 2013 16:53, "Alan Cabrera" <a...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem. >>> >>> Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner >> and sometimes mentors are the problem. >>> >>> Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman. >> >> From now on I'm only going to look at solutions in the context of the >> issues on the wiki page. If a proposal doesn't apply to one or more >>issues >> I'm not interested. >> >> In this case... >> >> The only problem that would need an ombudsmen is ISSUE 01 (inactive >> mentors). Mentors should always know where to go to solve a problem (we >> have specialist committees for pretty much every issue that will >>arise). If >> mentors are inactive then ISSUE 01 is in play. >> >> The current place to go is the IPMC. At this point ISSUE 03 may well >>come >> into play. >> >> The idea of an Ombudsman overlaps with my earlier proposal for a >> psuedo-board in the IPMC. Its also similar to both suggested solutions >>for >> ISSUE 03 in the wiki. >> >> For these reasons I suggest the Ombudsmen proposal has merit. >> >> I also suggest that this ombudsmen could be the organisation responsible >> for acting if a podling (or a pTLP, if the experiment shows merit in >>this >> model) is failing. >> >> As always the details needs to be ironed out but since the proposal >> directly addresses ISSUE 03 I would like to see it explored. I >>especially >> like that it complements my pTLP experiment which is designed to address >> ISSUE 01 (but clearly your proposal is worth exploring even without that >> potential advantage). >> >> Ross >> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alan >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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
