I like the idea, but isn't the initial list primarily a question for the Secretary. Is the Secretary ok with 1000 additional ICLAs arriving en masse from an even larger project?
If so, then I think the solution is much simpler; *Let the podling decide* if it is only Mentors, every user who has showed up at the project, or anything in between. If the Secretary has workload issues with ICLAs, then add a "max X" to the "let the podling decide". My guess is that the Secretary would say Ok to up to 100, possibly much higher (it spreads out over a few weeks). The less Incubator interferes the better, I think. Niclas On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org > > > > wrote: > > >... Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being > > fully > > > aware of an increased load... > > > > And as such might be an interesting filter to make sure mentors are > > actually going to engage. > > > > RIght. That was a bit of my thought: if the mentors aren't engaged enough > to vote people in, then what are they doing there.(*) > > The basic concept can certainly be fiddled with. I see a couple ways: > increased mentor count for the bootstrap work, and/or maybe set the initial > list at (5) rather than (0). > > But back to (*), the mentors may only be there for *community* > development/education. As stated elsethread, such mentors may not be > properly equipped to evaluate merit for committership. That's a fair point > which I had not considered. ... So you could maybe imagine (1) Champion, > (3) Mentors, and (5) PPMC/committers to start any podling. > > Cheers, > -g > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
