On Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 03:13 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but > >> it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of > >> a week ago: what would be the effective way to change the > >> status quo around IPMC an make it more board like? > >> > >> Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually > >> make sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess > >> I can propose a change to the current policies (or to Ross' > >> point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)). > >> > >> But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering > >> PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense? > > > > I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for the > > idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor. > > Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint) > but and extremely fair observation. > > As far as I'm concerned the issue of R&Rs of IPMC is in a state of a > stalemate right now. We clearly have a "everything's fine lets just > add more policy" constituency vs. "IPMC should be small and more > board like" crowd.
If I had to identify one problem that the IPMC/Incubator suffers from at the moment it would not be a need for a "small and more board like" structure. The biggest problem (and perhaps I view it this way because I'm suffering from it / am part of the problem) is a lack of time / attention from mentors. I'm really not sure that the proposal here solves that in any meaningful way. > The good news is that we're all united on making sure that the foundation > is growing by podlings making progress and graduating to TLPs. The > bad news is that because of the current mentality I don't see the types > of unfortunate threads that Ignite just went through going away anytime > soon. What about the Ignite thread was "unfortunate"? That it was a bit heated at times, or just the fact that there was disagreement? I fear that there's too much bias towards +1'ing things even when folks have legitimate concerns. > This is that proverbial "political overhead" that a lot of folks are > accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which > is > grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very > true at IPMC level today. A lot of companies seem to view any friction (e.g. "actually complying with policies that put community over code") as "political overhead" that makes joining the foundation undesirable. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
