Your reply is fine, except that your original question was about what happens when “If it turns out that the Mentors have been reminding the podling to file but nobody's followed through”
In other words mentors have already said “I’m on it” and have already tried to fix the problem. Your reply to my solution is addressing a step before that. Sent from Mail<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Marvin Humphrey Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:57 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: When podlings don't file a report On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > This is one aspect that I feel needs fixing. Currently there are too many > people who "might" be responsible. What we need is someone who *is* > responsible. It's initially the mentors, but if (as per your original > question) a podling has failed to file for 4 months then the mentors are > clearly dropping the ball or they need assistance in impressing upon the > podling community how important this is. So who next? > > My answer is the IPMC, but then we hit the "too many cooks problem". I don't think it has to be that way. All any IPMC Member has to do is check in on the Mentors by sending an email to, say, private@incubator. That's what not happening right now. If there is at least one Mentor willing to continue, all they have to do is respond "I'm on it" and either persuade the podling to report the next month or add a comment to the report themselves. If there are no Mentors willing to continue, then the IPMC has to work with the podling to arrange for new Mentors or retire. I don't see a situation there where "too many cooks" end up arguing about the proper course of action for very long. Of course someone might stick their nose in but if there are active Mentors who just needed a nudge, the situation ought to be resolved quickly. > To your "shepherd" point below the term here in the IPMC is different to the > term at the board level. Board shepherds *are* responsible for following up > after board meetings. That's where the buck stops. Indeed, the "shepherd" institution is implemented effectively by the Board level. We don't have such shepherds in the Incubator... BUT we do have Mentors. Mentors are in fact *better* positioned to offer insight than Incubator shepherds they follow the podling consistently. We just squander their insight, because shepherds own primary responsibility for commenting on the state of the podling. It's as if the Board had assigned a Director to watch over a TLP then relied solely on the Board shepherd for their assessment, forgoing all input from the Director on-the-ground. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
