My strawman, which included a board like IPMC, certainly wasn't about shutting out inconvenient IPMC members, that is simply a ridiculous a d insulting suggestion (if it wasn't intended in that way then fine, but it sure sounds like it).
My strawman was partly about consensus, but mostly about having a group if people who take individual responsibility for doing the unpopular stuff when the process is failing (which is not the norm). Today it is rare for the IPMC to do that stuff, partly because it is hard to gain consensus, but mostly because it has no teeth (a phrase I used a great deal in explaining my strawman). The goal is for that group to prevent the ongoing centralization of the IPMC and put the authority back where it belongs, with active mentors engaged with the project community. I know some people feel that having a smaller group results in greater centralization, but that depends on who is a part of that group. The *only* goal of my strawman was to give the IPMC accountability and teeth. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Bertrand Delacretaz<mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org> Sent: 1/20/2015 6:46 AM To: Incubator General<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.) On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > ...Isn’t it obvious what the above and IncubatorV2 proposal are about? > Consolidating > like minded individuals into a new IPMC and shutting out the other > inconvenient > members until "they come to their senses”.... I don't buy that conspiracy theory, for me it's just very difficult to build consensus in the Incubator as the goal is much fuzzier than producing software. But maybe I'm too candid ;-) -Bertrand --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
