On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 08:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> IMO the IPMC cannot delegate legal oversight to a sub-committee (for
>> example) unless that sub-committee consisted of members of the IPMC. The
>> reason for this is hat only members of the IPMC are recognized by the board
>> and thus only IPMC members have binding votes.
>
> That is what the board has done to date. That is not the only
> possibility in terms of what the board *could* do, which is much more
> where my question was leading.
The issue was brought before the Board earlier this week and they have
explicitly bounced it back to us. Their rationale is that the problem lies
within the scope of project governance that the Board has delegated to the
Incubator PMC. The Board has plenty going on these days; I can understand
that they don't want to get involved in debates over e.g. the nitty gritty
details of pTLP design.
So, it's our responsibility to design a solution using only the resources
currently available to us. If we exercise a little creativity and
flexibility, I don't think we will find ourselves unduly constrained.
> My issue is that granting PMC membership is too big a step for many
> podling members. Going from being newbie podling member, to a part of a
> team responsible for 50+ incubator projects is, with the freedom to
> mentor other podlings, is too big a step for most podling members, and
> will remain scary even if you attempt to restrict 'powers' through
> social convention.
That sounds unreasonably pessimistic. Historically, when contributors from
active podlings have been nominated, vetted and successfully voted onto the
IPMC, things have worked out very well:
Brian Duxbury (Thrift)
Richard Hirsch (ESME)
Marvin Humphrey (Lucy)
Karl Wright (ManifoldCF)
Dave Fisher (OpenOffice)
Andrei Savu (Provisionr)
I'm proud to be part of that group. I would like to see it grow -- in my
view, the Incubator has erred by not recruiting aggressively enough!
> Whereas, if it were possible to grant a lesser role, which allowed
> podling members to cast binding votes for their podling alone, we'd
> likely see a lot more podling members voted into that position (sure,
> they can only be voted in by Incubator PMC members).
>
> I'm afraid I find it very tedious us attempting to shoe-horn the
> incubator into a structure (a standard PMC) that just doesn't quite fit,
> rather than seeking a structure that will suit the both the incubator
> and the foundation, allowing merit to be recognised in individuals at a
> range of stages within a podlings lifecycle.
I understand exactly where you're coming from: structural flaws in the
Incubator require Board-level fixes.
The feedback I've taken from the Board is that if we can persuade them that a
structural change is truly in the best interest of the foundation, they will
accomodate us. However, first we need to run some experiments and build our
case. "Incremental, reversible steps", as they say.
Running a pilot pTLP wholly within the Incubator is actually more
straightforward than running it as an independent TLP. The chain of oversight
is clear: a podling being run as a pTLP is the responsibility of the IPMC, not
the Board. We also don't have to think about things like whether releases
should go in the Incubator's release area, whether the pTLP is a "podling" (it
is), or whether it is "incubating" (it is).
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
