+1 for #4
From I known, member of Incubator PMC is either already Apache Member or People already are/were active and helpful for other incubator project. Even they are not active today, removing them from IPMC could have negative effects when they want to be back in some day. Of course, we could consider to send mail to the IPMC members, who haven't subscribed the private ml, and ask them to do so. ------------------ Sheng Wu Apache SkyWalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin Twitter, wusheng1108 ------------------ Original ------------------ From: "roman"<ro...@shaposhnik.org>; Date: Fri, Mar 8, 2019 07:39 AM To: "general"<general@incubator.apache.org>; Subject: Re: A smaller IPMC On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:33 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > It??s been suggested that the IPMC is too large, what do other IPMC members > think might be a way to address this? Personally, I believe that "IPMC is too large" argument is only applicable to how quickly/easily consensus can be built. That's literally the only situation when the size of IPMC gets in the way (sometimes). Is anyone aware of any other situations where "IPMC is too large" argument is actually legit? At any rate, the rest of my feedback will be from that single perspective: > Please discuss and indicate +1 what you would think would help, you can vote > for more than one. > > Some suggestions: > 1. Ask all inactive IPMC if they want to continue being on the IPMC and see > who steps down. Being inactive they are probably not following this list so > we need to identify and send each one email them personally. > 2. There were some questions around merit raised, remove all IPMC members who > were not on the initial proposal and who were voted in. Those left on the > IPMC vote back in those who are currently active. > 3. Get rid of all IPMC members, and vote (with ASF members vote being binding > - not sure how else it could be done?) currently active ones back in. > 4. Do nothing as this is not actually a problem but instead address other > underlying issues. e.g. lack of mentor engagement. I would like to suggest a 5th alternative (again this is from the above's perspective): * Don't change anything, but for any situation that requires consensus building just be a tad more formal with how we close loops and track if we really get as many obstructionists as we thing that the size of the IPMC allows. If not -- we don't have a problem. > Also re point 2 do you think we should drop that ASF members can > automatically get IPMC membership and change it to requiring a vote by the > IPMC? It??s has always seem odd to me that this is the case. We??ve recently > voted more people in that we??ve had requests from ASF members. > > Any other sugestions? > > Options 2 and 3 may cause some issues around mentors, but if they were not > active then I guess it??s no big loss. > > And any suggestions on level of activity? Such as: > - Emailed the list in the last year. > - Reviewed at least one release in that time. > > It??s already been determined that some (about 15%) of the less than active > PMC members (out of the 100 odd that are not signed up to the IPMC private > list) do help out infrequently but that help is very useful. That may also > apply to other inactive IPMC members, so I would suggest the bar for what > consider active be kept low. I honestly don't see how all of these options of getting people in and out of IPMC can actually help with this consensus building thing. So yeah -- I'd say #5. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
