Woonsan

I think that there may be some cross-talk between discussions. This latest
discussion was about the Ipmc ,not about the podling PMCs.



On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:27 PM Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:33 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> +1 to my modified version from #2 (and 0 to the others as I don't
> think they will help a lot):
> "Remove all IPMC members who were not on the initial proposal and who
> were voted in. Those left on the IPMC vote for those, as members, who
> can recruit, guide mentors, and review podling graduations, and they
> also vote for those, as mentors (committers), who have ever been
> active mentors for podlings."
>
> Mentors are committers: if someone starts contributing in this
> community, they are to be recognized and invited to a mentor
> (committer) in this project; if they contribute more for the community
> consistently, they are to be invited to a IPMC member. In smaller
> IPMC, IPMC members focus more on helping/guiding mentors and reviewing
> graduations in various aspects, and mentors focus more on detail
> issues in podlings, providing enough overview and information to IPMC.
> I think this will make it a fairer merit-earning game, to new comers
> getting helps from mentors and (graduation and/or high-level) reviews
> from members, watchers considering to help, mentors eager to help
> graduations, more focused members, ...
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> +1 to always be voting, whether they are ASF members or not, like other
> PMCs.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> My modified version includes all active people as mentors (committers)
> at least, so there's no loss as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Woonsan
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>

Reply via email to