Hi Ted, Maybe I missed somethings totally, but I intended to express my preference about restructuring of IPMC, not PPMCs: - Keep only people as IPMC members who can really guide, recruit and review graduations based on their merits shown in the past in this specific community; - Keep active mentors as "mentors", like "committers" in other projects with no binding votes, but more focused on helping podlings with details and providing enough info and overview to IPMC. - No automatic IPMC membership for ASF members without voting based on their merit in this "incubation" community.
There are concerns in detail, such as how to get 3+ votes in the releases of podlings that are not close to graduation if mentors don't have binding votes, how to recognize mentoring contributions from new faces, etc. Ideas in other threads flow here and there. If IPMC members are more focused on high-level guidances and reviews, it should work based on active mentors' helps. Anyway, the above is my personal preference. It seems fairer to me than today: when podlings get reviews, voting, and guidances from IPMC; when mentors work hard to get a podling graduated standing between a podling and IPMC; when a mentor is recognized and invited to IPMC by the incubation community for their mentoring contributions; when more dedicated IPMC members review and cast binding vote with more responsible feedbacks; when people watch, participate in the lists considering to help podlings in various ways possibly hoping to be a mentor (committer) someday. Regards, Woonsan On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:49 PM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
