Sorry if it rubs the wrong way. However, we just have seen through the Ignite discussion (most recent one) the examples where personal expectations were represented as graduation requirements. It is perhaps in good faith - I am not questioning the intention. I am saying that when requirements are unclear, people interpret them based on their own understanding of unwritten Apache ethos. As Brane called it earlier - "confusing opinions and policies". You see where I am going with this, right?
Cos On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:56AM, Julian Hyde wrote: > Cos, > > There is no "bureaucratism outbreak". People are not "express[ing] > their expectations as a law-of-the-land". People are trying, in good > faith, to make sure that decisions are made consistent with the Apache > ethos. And before you ask, no, that ethos cannot be written down; it > has to be interpreted via debate. This is what debate sounds like. > > Julian > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:36AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > >> <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > >> > wrote: > >> >> ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering > >> >> PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?... > >> > > >> > How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active > >> > mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring > >> > minimal interaction with the IPMC? > >> > >> I think it is more of a bias issue. IOW, today it seems that the default > >> bias > >> of IPMC is to consider itself a final authority (or a gatekeeper) on > >> podling > >> releases. We need to break that bias and make it so that it is truly a > >> safety > >> net, rather than a gatekeeper. > >> > >> IOW, I'd like the release traffic on general@ to ONLY consist of [NOTICE] > >> emails, not [VOTE]. > > > > We perhaps are observing the well known phenomena called self-selection bias > > [1] And it seems to me that the simplification and better clarification of > > the > > incubation guidelines might be exactly what's needed to prevent a > > bureaucratism outbreak. As well as the situation when ppl express their > > expectations as a law-of-the-land (even from best intentions). > > > > Cos > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
