Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Chris, As I feel like I've explained 100 times, all of the following are true: 1) I disagree with your proposal 2) I agree with much of your analyses of problems with the IPMC 3) I I trying to do a job of consensus moderation as best I understand how, being fair to you and to all the involuntary readers of all this. My 'sweeping statements' reflect my understanding. My invitation stands and is non-ironic. If you think that there is a consensus based on your understanding of appropriate Foundation process, test it. If you are right, off we go to ask the board to to try your plan. If you are wrong, we move on. Or, you go directly to the board to make your case that this group is too disfunctional to do the right thing. That's it for me for this weekend. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
-Original Message- From: Joseph Schaefer Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:24 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC >I firmly believe our priority in mentoring podlings is to instill >self-governance as early as is feasible, and the proven way to accomplish >that task is to identify suitable members of the podling and elect them >to the IPMC so they are fully empowered to do it. Every other approach >is suboptimal. And I fully agree with Joe, it's just that I don't think we that the IPMC is the body to elect them too -- elect them to the incoming podling/probationary TLP's own committee, which contains ASF members (at least 3) to watch them, and make them report out as normal projects do. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ > >On May 11, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote: > >> >> On May 11, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Joseph Schaefer >>wrote: >> >>> Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of >>>MENTORING >>> these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. >>> We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the >>>competent >>> volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do >>> what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order >>> to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop >>> fighting. >> >> >> Yes, shuttling the kids off the the grandparents is not going to solve >>anything. If individuals on the board have the bandwidth to help they >>should come over here. There's nothing specific about the auspices of >>the board that would improve the situation. >> >> I personally think that we have "almost" enough people to mentor. I >>think that the burnout comes from our constant churning of policy and >>lack of tooling to make mundane tasks easier. >> >> For example, maybe >> better reminders for reports >> automatic nudging of mentors who have not signed reports >> dead pilot buttons to detect inactive mentors (Is it called a dead >>pilot button) >> maybe a standard to podling releases to make vetting easier - i.e. >>apply tooling >> changes/additions to vetting procedures taking place outside of release >>votes. (ok not a tooling issue) >> >> >> Regards, >> Alan >> > >- >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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >> If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's >> the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not. > > Please see several emails from Greg and others on the board@ list > recently pointing out the inappropriateness of overuse of votes. > > If even *one* person strongly objects, there is no consensus. There is > a strong handful of people who strongly object. So there's no > consensus. This isn't a majority issue. > > I don't uniquely own the role of testing consensus. If you want to > send a message that tests consensus on your proposal, or more > accurately tests consensus on the idea of asking the board for > permission to do a trial run of your proposal, go right ahead. I feel > confident that it will attract enough firm -1 votes to demonstrate a > lack of consensus in favor of the idea. > I'm with Benson on that particular point, if there is a vote to be called it should be called by the ones in favour, but i don't think any vote is needed here. I do think some small experiments would be better and easier more gentle and less divisive approach than trying to push through global Incubator changes. You don't need to be king to go write some tooling, you don't need Incubator consensus to nominate some poddling people to the PMC. We could pick a handful of poddlings and ask their champions to report monthly and see if that makes a difference, and we could pick another handful and strip away their champion and shepards and instead just give them two active mentors and see what difference that makes. I'm not suggesting a 'direct-to-PMC' trial, i'm suggesting trying whats been label as "board managed poddlings" or "probationary TLPs" seeded from existing poddlings. That seems to me a more direct way to get to Joe's "instill self-governance as early as is feasible" than electing the poddling people to the Incubator PMC, and it helps avoid Ross's concern about poddlings "likely to run into problems according to our collective experience". But for that we do need the question put to the board first. Even if they if the board replied that probationary TLPs are batshit insane that would be terrific because then we could stop having this branch of the discussion keep coming up. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Alan keeps asking that we isolate the problems that need solving. Sounds sensible. For me the IPMC usually works just fine. Occasionally there is a failure in mentoring and occasionally the IPMC fails to pick this up and address it. In addition, sometimes the IPMC is an inefficient vehicle for helping podlings that are having some form of difficulty. Whilst we do need to solve these problems, it is my opinion that these occasional failures are being blown out of all proportion. We are losing sight of the fact that more often than not our mentors do a great job. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Alan Cabrera Sent: 11/05/2013 17:46 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC On May 11, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the > entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to > participate in any way. Can you explain what problem launching new projects with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way solves? Maybe this is where the disconnect is. Is the IPMC the problem or is it the lack of mentors the problem? What are the core problems that you are trying to solve? > Taking a proposal that has been groomed and > vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the > board is purely an experiment in board supervision. Can you explain what is it about the board that's better than having the board members with the spare bandwidth coming over to the IPMC to help? What is it about the auspices of the board that improves things? What is the exact problem that this solves? > My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', > it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently > constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and > can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. > The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It > could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to > survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney > VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is > desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) That depends on what the problem is. If the IPMC is paralyzed then yes, the board should step in. I didn't realize that we're there already. If we are then please be explicit about it. But I don't understand why we can't go through the simple exercise that I propose to see where we have points in common. I think that doing so will go a long way to generating good will, as people's positions will be analyzed down to their core, and provide better transparency as to what people's motivations are. I'm saying this because I really don't understand why people are espousing these various solutions. I want to understand but at the moment it just seems that people are holding on to their positions without explaining their thoughts down to the core problems that they think they are trying to solve. In the end, I think if we're really serous about this we'll end up with bits of everyone's proposals. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
-Original Message-
From: Benson Margulies
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:56 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
>>
>> If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's
>> the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not.
>
>Please see several emails from Greg and others on the board@ list
>recently pointing out the inappropriateness of overuse of votes.
And please see the last 10 years of Apache policy regarding what consensus
means, and what it doesn't.
I'm sick of your sweeping statements -- be direct. You have a problem with
my proposal -- good -- no matter how many "go off this list" or "bugger
off",
or "take your proposal" elsewhere emails you send, the point is, I've done
the work; have mentored projects, and have done a lot more than simply talk
about what to get done and what not to get done in the past N years
of the Incubator. So yes, I care just as much as you do, and I've done the
work to document my care.
>
>If even *one* person strongly objects, there is no consensus. There is
>a strong handful of people who strongly object. So there's no
>consensus. This isn't a majority issue.
It doesn't matter if it's a majority or not issue. You made a sweeping
statement:
{quote}
I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in
the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative
should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message.
{quote}
How_on_Earth can you get a gauge on what 170+ people believe, or what they
don't?
I suggested calling a VOTE, I wouldn't even know what the binding results
of the VOTE would be -- but at least it's measurable and quantifiable
instead
of declarative which is the language that I see you prefer using.
>
>I don't uniquely own the role of testing consensus. If you want to
>send a message that tests consensus on your proposal, or more
>accurately tests consensus on the idea of asking the board for
>permission to do a trial run of your proposal, go right ahead. I feel
>confident that it will attract enough firm -1 votes to demonstrate a
>lack of consensus in favor of the idea.
One the one hand you want to make thinly veiled statements about what
power you have as VP; on the other you pull back and claim what roles
you don't own. So, which one is it, Benson?
I for one am also sick of the whoo hah hah, and I've given up that this
committee will decide much of anything. That's not a slight to the
committee,
which contains some of the most well respected (by me and others) members
of
the ASF. It's more a slight to the ridiculous model that the IPMC has
employed,
and the thumbing its nose at the traditional mantras of the ASF that it
ignores
(e.g., the utter uselessness and destruction that umbrella projects, once
arrived
at, create).
Cheers,
Chris
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++
>
>-
>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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Hi Alan, -Original Message- From: Alan Cabrera Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:01 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC [..snip..] > >> and more weakness >> in _supervising_ (or at least in documenting supervision). > >Could tooling help here? Tooling is important, but it doesn't solve the "META COMMITTEE" issue. Aka there is a ton of people on this umbrella project, and reaching consensus on anything is quite difficult. The ASF doesn't work this way -- there isn't an umbrella project controlling all of the sub projects. The board isn't an umbrella committee. It's not designed that way. They have ultimate authority/power, based on the election of the membership, but they are honestly dead slow to use it -- and for good reason. Such power should not be wielded lightly. Yet, we try in the IPMC to use it constantly. Having VOTEs for this, and that, privately and publicly, for people and/or for releases. It doesn't work. When it does work it's through the effort of "Champions" that existed well before the name was ever coined. A lot of Champions (Ross, Joe, me, Jukka, Chris D, you=Alan, Ant, Alan G., to name a few) have our own interests in pushing our podlings through that we brought to the ASF -- other Champions are Board members of the ASF, or ASF veterans that simply care about the impact that these new projects will have on the Foundation. But it's really those Champions, and/or those combined mentors who are active that push the podling through *in spite of* the wild west that is the IPMC. This has been documented in numerous threads and numbers things have been undertaken over the past year and a half some of which helped to improve the situation (only 1 IPMC mentor VOTE needed for PPMC addition; Joe's experiment; formal definition of Champion role; etc etc); and other things have been tried that had little to no effect (email threads; proposal wars; bickering, blah blah). > >> We have a >> few competing proposals for changes to address these, especially >> supervision weakness. > >Is the reporting problem the sole issue? No, it's a variety of things centered around the general nature of umbrella projects, which we have the worst kind of in the IPMC. People on the IPMC telling PPMCs and projects how to run their communities? The ASF doesn't stand for that in its regular projects; why teach the podlings that their VOTEs don't count, and that the only people who cast binding release and membership VOTEs are members of some meta committee that have no merit in their project? > >> I wish that I felt confident as Joe does that >> just electing more people from inside the projects was all we needed >> to do; maybe Alan's idea combined with that is the way to go. > >I'm not sure which way to go but I'm really liking the direction of this >email. I feel that I'm getting a sense of what you feel are the core >problems we're trying to solve. I'd be curious as to the intersection of those problems with the ones I've been pointing out for years. And I did more than point them out. I wrote a proposal that has incremental next steps to take in each way. > >> Recently we had a situation on private where I felt that there was a >> consensus to be had, but some people needed to be nudged a bit to >> allow it to emerge. That's not what I see here when considering the >> choices of using more or less of shepherds, champions, and mentors. > >I think that a lot of members didn't read it, thinking that there was yet >another email storm to ignore. > >This was the point that I was trying to make in my earlier emails. *It >is the constant churning of roles and processes that is exhausting this >IPMC, not the actual work.* It is this bureaucratic churning that's >sapping the emotional energy if the IPMC members. > >Why are we "churning"? Because we are not holding members/mentors up to >their commitments. Because we are constantly coming up w/ new ad hoc >exceptions for every policy we have. It's way bigger than holding members/mentors up to their commitments. I (and others) are questioning the core of the commitment and it's rationale. > >We need less process. Less roles. More accountability. More tooling. I totally agree with this -- I've put up an incremental, step-by-step method to achieve all of that. > >> One possible path is that, at some point, I as VP pick one. I plan to >> let this discussion continue for at least a week, if not more, before >> I remotely consider taking that step. > >Ultimately we voted you in to be our VP. I
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
> > If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's > the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not. Please see several emails from Greg and others on the board@ list recently pointing out the inappropriateness of overuse of votes. If even *one* person strongly objects, there is no consensus. There is a strong handful of people who strongly object. So there's no consensus. This isn't a majority issue. I don't uniquely own the role of testing consensus. If you want to send a message that tests consensus on your proposal, or more accurately tests consensus on the idea of asking the board for permission to do a trial run of your proposal, go right ahead. I feel confident that it will attract enough firm -1 votes to demonstrate a lack of consensus in favor of the idea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Benson, -Original Message- From: Benson Margulies Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:44 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC >[..snip..] >One possible path is that, at some point, I as VP pick one. I plan to >let this discussion continue for at least a week, if not more, before >I remotely consider taking that step. > >I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in >the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative >should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message. Based on what evidence? # of emails sent in either direction? If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ > >On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Alan Cabrera >wrote: >> >> On May 11, 2013, at 7:26 AM, ant elder wrote: >> >>> I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do >>> this, but I'm not sure we need it. >> >> Lovely. >> >> >> Regards, >> Alan >> > >- >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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
I firmly believe our priority in mentoring podlings is to instill self-governance as early as is feasible, and the proven way to accomplish that task is to identify suitable members of the podling and elect them to the IPMC so they are fully empowered to do it. Every other approach is suboptimal. Sent from my iPhone On May 11, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote: > > On May 11, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Joseph Schaefer wrote: > >> Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING >> these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. >> We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent >> volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do >> what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order >> to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop >> fighting. > > > Yes, shuttling the kids off the the grandparents is not going to solve > anything. If individuals on the board have the bandwidth to help they should > come over here. There's nothing specific about the auspices of the board that > would improve the situation. > > I personally think that we have "almost" enough people to mentor. I think > that the burnout comes from our constant churning of policy and lack of > tooling to make mundane tasks easier. > > For example, maybe > better reminders for reports > automatic nudging of mentors who have not signed reports > dead pilot buttons to detect inactive mentors (Is it called a dead pilot > button) > maybe a standard to podling releases to make vetting easier - i.e. apply > tooling > changes/additions to vetting procedures taking place outside of release > votes. (ok not a tooling issue) > > > Regards, > Alan > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 11, 2013, at 11:03 AM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > It's often called a dead-man's switch. I think the term applied originally > to locomotive engineers and also metro car drivers. (I'm not sure what a > dead pilot switch could accomplish in an aircraft.) > > I think having mentors review and "sign" PPMC status reports is an effective > dead mentor's switch [;<). Ahh, yeah, that was it. I was also thinking that voting releases would be it as well. The tooling would make the tracking automatic so the mundane task of tracking all the mentors for all the podlings would be automatic. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
It's often called a dead-man's switch. I think the term applied originally to locomotive engineers and also metro car drivers. (I'm not sure what a dead pilot switch could accomplish in an aircraft.) I think having mentors review and "sign" PPMC status reports is an effective dead mentor's switch [;<). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Alan Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:10 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC On May 11, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Joseph Schaefer wrote: > Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING > these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. > We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent > volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do > what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order > to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop > fighting. Yes, shuttling the kids off the the grandparents is not going to solve anything. If individuals on the board have the bandwidth to help they should come over here. There's nothing specific about the auspices of the board that would improve the situation. I personally think that we have "almost" enough people to mentor. I think that the burnout comes from our constant churning of policy and lack of tooling to make mundane tasks easier. For example, maybe better reminders for reports automatic nudging of mentors who have not signed reports dead pilot buttons to detect inactive mentors (Is it called a dead pilot button) maybe a standard to podling releases to make vetting easier - i.e. apply tooling changes/additions to vetting procedures taking place outside of release votes. (ok not a tooling issue) Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 11, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Joseph Schaefer wrote: > Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING > these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. > We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent > volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do > what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order > to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop > fighting. Yes, shuttling the kids off the the grandparents is not going to solve anything. If individuals on the board have the bandwidth to help they should come over here. There's nothing specific about the auspices of the board that would improve the situation. I personally think that we have "almost" enough people to mentor. I think that the burnout comes from our constant churning of policy and lack of tooling to make mundane tasks easier. For example, maybe better reminders for reports automatic nudging of mentors who have not signed reports dead pilot buttons to detect inactive mentors (Is it called a dead pilot button) maybe a standard to podling releases to make vetting easier - i.e. apply tooling changes/additions to vetting procedures taking place outside of release votes. (ok not a tooling issue) Regards, Alan
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 11, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > Violating my 24 hour rule just this one, and worse yet to repeat myself: IMO, I think this is fine so long as it occurs on the weekend. :) > +1 Joe, Ross, etc. > > I rather regret mentioning the direct launch alternative in my most > recent email. We have some weakness in _mentoring_, Agreed. > and more weakness > in _supervising_ (or at least in documenting supervision). Could tooling help here? > We have a > few competing proposals for changes to address these, especially > supervision weakness. Is the reporting problem the sole issue? > I wish that I felt confident as Joe does that > just electing more people from inside the projects was all we needed > to do; maybe Alan's idea combined with that is the way to go. I'm not sure which way to go but I'm really liking the direction of this email. I feel that I'm getting a sense of what you feel are the core problems we're trying to solve. > Recently we had a situation on private where I felt that there was a > consensus to be had, but some people needed to be nudged a bit to > allow it to emerge. That's not what I see here when considering the > choices of using more or less of shepherds, champions, and mentors. I think that a lot of members didn't read it, thinking that there was yet another email storm to ignore. This was the point that I was trying to make in my earlier emails. *It is the constant churning of roles and processes that is exhausting this IPMC, not the actual work.* It is this bureaucratic churning that's sapping the emotional energy if the IPMC members. Why are we "churning"? Because we are not holding members/mentors up to their commitments. Because we are constantly coming up w/ new ad hoc exceptions for every policy we have. We need less process. Less roles. More accountability. More tooling. > One possible path is that, at some point, I as VP pick one. I plan to > let this discussion continue for at least a week, if not more, before > I remotely consider taking that step. Ultimately we voted you in to be our VP. I feel that you are listening to our concerns. I'll support what ever your decision is even if I don't agree. > I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in > the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative > should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message. What this "direct to PMC" model? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 11, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the > entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to > participate in any way. Can you explain what problem launching new projects with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way solves? Maybe this is where the disconnect is. Is the IPMC the problem or is it the lack of mentors the problem? What are the core problems that you are trying to solve? > Taking a proposal that has been groomed and > vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the > board is purely an experiment in board supervision. Can you explain what is it about the board that's better than having the board members with the spare bandwidth coming over to the IPMC to help? What is it about the auspices of the board that improves things? What is the exact problem that this solves? > My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', > it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently > constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and > can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. > The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It > could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to > survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney > VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is > desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) That depends on what the problem is. If the IPMC is paralyzed then yes, the board should step in. I didn't realize that we're there already. If we are then please be explicit about it. But I don't understand why we can't go through the simple exercise that I propose to see where we have points in common. I think that doing so will go a long way to generating good will, as people's positions will be analyzed down to their core, and provide better transparency as to what people's motivations are. I'm saying this because I really don't understand why people are espousing these various solutions. I want to understand but at the moment it just seems that people are holding on to their positions without explaining their thoughts down to the core problems that they think they are trying to solve. In the end, I think if we're really serous about this we'll end up with bits of everyone's proposals. Regards, Alan
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Violating my 24 hour rule just this one, and worse yet to repeat myself: +1 Joe, Ross, etc. I rather regret mentioning the direct launch alternative in my most recent email. We have some weakness in _mentoring_, and more weakness in _supervising_ (or at least in documenting supervision). We have a few competing proposals for changes to address these, especially supervision weakness. I wish that I felt confident as Joe does that just electing more people from inside the projects was all we needed to do; maybe Alan's idea combined with that is the way to go. Recently we had a situation on private where I felt that there was a consensus to be had, but some people needed to be nudged a bit to allow it to emerge. That's not what I see here when considering the choices of using more or less of shepherds, champions, and mentors. One possible path is that, at some point, I as VP pick one. I plan to let this discussion continue for at least a week, if not more, before I remotely consider taking that step. I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote: > > On May 11, 2013, at 7:26 AM, ant elder wrote: > >> I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do >> this, but I'm not sure we need it. > > Lovely. > > > Regards, > Alan > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 11, 2013, at 7:26 AM, ant elder wrote: > I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do > this, but I'm not sure we need it. Lovely. Regards, Alan
RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
It's not just you Joe. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Joseph Schaefer Sent: 11/05/2013 15:34 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop fighting. On May 11, 2013, at 10:26 AM, ant elder wrote: > Actually I wasn't thinking it would be you Benson who talked to the > board. There are several directors here including a couple on this > thread who've said they support trying this so i thought they could > bring it up informally at the upcoming meeting just to get us an idea > if this is something the board would entertain at all. > > I agree with you that there are a lot of details that would need to be > worked out, but right now it doesn't look like anyone is doing that > work so getting some feedback from the board, even if its just "maybe > but we need more details", could help motivate getting that work done > and coming up with a complete proposal. If the board sounded > interested i'd help getting to that and it sounds like there are a few > others here who would too. > > I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do > this, but I'm not sure we need it. If we come up with a process and > proposal that the board is happy with and poddlings to be guinea pigs > then we don't really need a unanimous Incubator PMC vote to go ahead. > And its just an experiment, so its a much more gentle approach than > the other big bang changes being proposed. > > So what does anyone else think, is this worth trying? Greg > specifically, you were keen we try this earlier on in the thread so is > this something you could get us some feedback from the board about? > > ...ant > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies > wrote: >> >> I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no >> consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to >> the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable >> proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I >> plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making >> progress. >> >> A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the >> entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to >> participate in any way. Taking a proposal that has been groomed and >> vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the >> board is purely an experiment in board supervision. I'm not going to >> bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my >> personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a >> good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed. >> >> My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', >> it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently >> constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and >> can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. >> The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It >> could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to >> survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney >> VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is >> desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) >> >> >> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder wrote: >>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson wrote: >>>> If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, >>>> they >>>> you might apply a "lean startup" approach, and figure out how to run tests >>>> to see which way works best. >>>> >>>> Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some >>>> experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run >>>> the >>>> experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some >>>> metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a >>>> while (three months, six mo
RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
It's not just you Joe. From: Joseph Schaefer Sent: 11/05/2013 15:34 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop fighting. On May 11, 2013, at 10:26 AM, ant elder wrote: > Actually I wasn't thinking it would be you Benson who talked to the > board. There are several directors here including a couple on this > thread who've said they support trying this so i thought they could > bring it up informally at the upcoming meeting just to get us an idea > if this is something the board would entertain at all. > > I agree with you that there are a lot of details that would need to be > worked out, but right now it doesn't look like anyone is doing that > work so getting some feedback from the board, even if its just "maybe > but we need more details", could help motivate getting that work done > and coming up with a complete proposal. If the board sounded > interested i'd help getting to that and it sounds like there are a few > others here who would too. > > I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do > this, but I'm not sure we need it. If we come up with a process and > proposal that the board is happy with and poddlings to be guinea pigs > then we don't really need a unanimous Incubator PMC vote to go ahead. > And its just an experiment, so its a much more gentle approach than > the other big bang changes being proposed. > > So what does anyone else think, is this worth trying? Greg > specifically, you were keen we try this earlier on in the thread so is > this something you could get us some feedback from the board about? > > ...ant > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies > wrote: >> >> I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no >> consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to >> the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable >> proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I >> plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making >> progress. >> >> A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the >> entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to >> participate in any way. Taking a proposal that has been groomed and >> vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the >> board is purely an experiment in board supervision. I'm not going to >> bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my >> personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a >> good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed. >> >> My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', >> it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently >> constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and >> can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. >> The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It >> could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to >> survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney >> VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is >> desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) >> >> >> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder wrote: >>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson wrote: >>>> If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, >>>> they >>>> you might apply a "lean startup" approach, and figure out how to run tests >>>> to see which way works best. >>>> >>>> Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some >>>> experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run >>>> the >>>> experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some >>>> metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a >>>> while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop fighting. On May 11, 2013, at 10:26 AM, ant elder wrote: > Actually I wasn't thinking it would be you Benson who talked to the > board. There are several directors here including a couple on this > thread who've said they support trying this so i thought they could > bring it up informally at the upcoming meeting just to get us an idea > if this is something the board would entertain at all. > > I agree with you that there are a lot of details that would need to be > worked out, but right now it doesn't look like anyone is doing that > work so getting some feedback from the board, even if its just "maybe > but we need more details", could help motivate getting that work done > and coming up with a complete proposal. If the board sounded > interested i'd help getting to that and it sounds like there are a few > others here who would too. > > I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do > this, but I'm not sure we need it. If we come up with a process and > proposal that the board is happy with and poddlings to be guinea pigs > then we don't really need a unanimous Incubator PMC vote to go ahead. > And its just an experiment, so its a much more gentle approach than > the other big bang changes being proposed. > > So what does anyone else think, is this worth trying? Greg > specifically, you were keen we try this earlier on in the thread so is > this something you could get us some feedback from the board about? > > ...ant > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies > wrote: >> >> I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no >> consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to >> the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable >> proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I >> plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making >> progress. >> >> A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the >> entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to >> participate in any way. Taking a proposal that has been groomed and >> vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the >> board is purely an experiment in board supervision. I'm not going to >> bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my >> personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a >> good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed. >> >> My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', >> it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently >> constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and >> can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. >> The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It >> could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to >> survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney >> VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is >> desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) >> >> >> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder wrote: >>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson wrote: If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they you might apply a "lean startup" approach, and figure out how to run tests to see which way works best. Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that will inform a decision. Eric. >>> >>> +1 for experimenting with some new approaches. >>> >>> Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or >>> probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week >>> if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a >>> dozen existing poddlings to try it. >>> >>> ...ant >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Actually I wasn't thinking it would be you Benson who talked to the board. There are several directors here including a couple on this thread who've said they support trying this so i thought they could bring it up informally at the upcoming meeting just to get us an idea if this is something the board would entertain at all. I agree with you that there are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but right now it doesn't look like anyone is doing that work so getting some feedback from the board, even if its just "maybe but we need more details", could help motivate getting that work done and coming up with a complete proposal. If the board sounded interested i'd help getting to that and it sounds like there are a few others here who would too. I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do this, but I'm not sure we need it. If we come up with a process and proposal that the board is happy with and poddlings to be guinea pigs then we don't really need a unanimous Incubator PMC vote to go ahead. And its just an experiment, so its a much more gentle approach than the other big bang changes being proposed. So what does anyone else think, is this worth trying? Greg specifically, you were keen we try this earlier on in the thread so is this something you could get us some feedback from the board about? ...ant On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no > consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to > the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable > proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I > plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making > progress. > > A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the > entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to > participate in any way. Taking a proposal that has been groomed and > vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the > board is purely an experiment in board supervision. I'm not going to > bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my > personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a > good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed. > > My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', > it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently > constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and > can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. > The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It > could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to > survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney > VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is > desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) > > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder wrote: > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson wrote: > >> If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, > >> they > >> you might apply a "lean startup" approach, and figure out how to run tests > >> to see which way works best. > >> > >> Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some > >> experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run > >> the > >> experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some > >> metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a > >> while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that > >> will inform a decision. > >> > >> Eric. > >> > > > > +1 for experimenting with some new approaches. > > > > Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or > > probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week > > if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a > > dozen existing poddlings to try it. > > > >...ant > > > > - > > 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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making progress. A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way. Taking a proposal that has been groomed and vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the board is purely an experiment in board supervision. I'm not going to bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed. My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson wrote: >> If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they >> you might apply a "lean startup" approach, and figure out how to run tests >> to see which way works best. >> >> Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some >> experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the >> experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some >> metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a >> while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that >> will inform a decision. >> >> Eric. >> > > +1 for experimenting with some new approaches. > > Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or > probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week > if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a > dozen existing poddlings to try it. > >...ant > > - > 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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson wrote: > If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they > you might apply a "lean startup" approach, and figure out how to run tests > to see which way works best. > > Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some > experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the > experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some > metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a > while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that > will inform a decision. > > Eric. > +1 for experimenting with some new approaches. Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a dozen existing poddlings to try it. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Lean startup approaches make sense when you do not know the problem that you're solving. You perform experiments and pivot as you blindly search for a domain whose problems you can solve and make money doing it. Here, we know what our problems are. This is not to say that we should not collect metrics. However, we barely have enough energy to keep things going as it is. We don't have the bandwidth to perform multiple experiments. Regards, Alan On May 10, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Eric Johnson wrote: > If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they > you might apply a "lean startup" approach, and figure out how to run tests to > see which way works best. > > Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some > experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the > experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some > metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a > while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that > will inform a decision. > > Eric. > > On 5/10/13 9:25 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> So, here we have: >> >> Alan's idea of removing champions and shepherds and demanding mentor >> recommitment, with the 'teeth' of putting podlings on ice if they >> can't muster an adequate mentor squad. >> >> My idea of asking champions to step up to some specific supervision >> responsibility, thus allowing some flexibility for some mentors to be >> more 'supervisory' than others. >> >> Ross' ideas about shepherds, >> >> Chris' proposal to push the self-destruct button. >> >> Does anyone have a suggestion for a decision procedure? I don't see, >> or foresee, a consensus for any of these. >> >> My draft board report says that if we don't find a way forward in time >> for the June board meeting, I propose to discuss the situation with >> the board. >> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 10, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > So, here we have: > > Alan's idea of removing champions and shepherds and demanding mentor > recommitment, with the 'teeth' of putting podlings on ice if they > can't muster an adequate mentor squad. > > My idea of asking champions to step up to some specific supervision > responsibility, thus allowing some flexibility for some mentors to be > more 'supervisory' than others. > > Ross' ideas about shepherds, > > Chris' proposal to push the self-destruct button. > > Does anyone have a suggestion for a decision procedure? I don't see, > or foresee, a consensus for any of these. > > My draft board report says that if we don't find a way forward in time > for the June board meeting, I propose to discuss the situation with > the board. When ever I'm in a situation like this, I find it helpful to write down what are the core problems that we're trying to solve. The trick is to use something like "5 whys" to get down to the core set w/out getting distracted. Once you get down to the core problems you weight them. Break down people's proposals into as small as possible, self contained, actionable, bits. Grade each bit as to how well it solves a core problem. By then, it's obvious what bits to pick up; the simplest ones at the top. Regards, Alan
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they you might apply a "lean startup" approach, and figure out how to run tests to see which way works best. Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that will inform a decision. Eric. On 5/10/13 9:25 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: So, here we have: Alan's idea of removing champions and shepherds and demanding mentor recommitment, with the 'teeth' of putting podlings on ice if they can't muster an adequate mentor squad. My idea of asking champions to step up to some specific supervision responsibility, thus allowing some flexibility for some mentors to be more 'supervisory' than others. Ross' ideas about shepherds, Chris' proposal to push the self-destruct button. Does anyone have a suggestion for a decision procedure? I don't see, or foresee, a consensus for any of these. My draft board report says that if we don't find a way forward in time for the June board meeting, I propose to discuss the situation with the board. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 8 May 2013 02:20, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: ...I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained support.. URL? Sorry, working from mobile device while travelling. I proposed creating a board like structure and formalising shepherd role. Very similar to Chris' proposal but leaving overhead with IPMC rather than moving to board. ...In the absence of something else with teeth then I'm +1 for probationary TLPs as proposed by Chris as long as we stop accepting projects that are likely to run into problems according to our collective experience If you're able to find out that a podling will cause problems in the future, or that its mentors will become inactive, maybe I should hire you for this lottery betting club ;-) Hehe - fair comment. I was thinking, for example, of BlueSky - the archives show my concern that was ignored and ultimately shown to be right. A counter example is OpenMeetings who addressed my concerns, came back and graduated quickly and smoothly. I'm not suggesting its always possible to get it right, but I do think we can be more rigorous in general. Apart from that I agree that the board doesn't have cycles to handle problematic podlings or missing mentors, and as a result whatever actions it would take would be much harsher than what we do here. That's the more important point. Ross -Bertrand - 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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
So, here we have: Alan's idea of removing champions and shepherds and demanding mentor recommitment, with the 'teeth' of putting podlings on ice if they can't muster an adequate mentor squad. My idea of asking champions to step up to some specific supervision responsibility, thus allowing some flexibility for some mentors to be more 'supervisory' than others. Ross' ideas about shepherds, Chris' proposal to push the self-destruct button. Does anyone have a suggestion for a decision procedure? I don't see, or foresee, a consensus for any of these. My draft board report says that if we don't find a way forward in time for the June board meeting, I propose to discuss the situation with the board. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity > On 8 May 2013 02:20, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler >> wrote: >> > ...I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained >> > support.. >> >> URL? > > Sorry, working from mobile device while travelling. I proposed creating a > board like structure and formalising shepherd role. Very similar to Chris' > proposal but leaving overhead with IPMC rather than moving to board. > >> >> > ...In the absence of something else with teeth then I'm +1 for >> > probationary TLPs as proposed by Chris as long as we stop accepting >> > projects that are likely to run into problems according to our >> > collective experience >> >> If you're able to find out that a podling will cause problems in the >> future, or that its mentors will become inactive, maybe I should hire >> you for this lottery betting club ;-) >> > > Hehe - fair comment. I was thinking, for example, of BlueSky - the archives > show my concern that was ignored and ultimately shown to be right. A > counter example is OpenMeetings who addressed my concerns, came back and > graduated quickly and smoothly. I'm not suggesting its always possible to > get it right, but I do think we can be more rigorous in general. > >> Apart from that I agree that the board doesn't have cycles to handle >> problematic podlings or missing mentors, and as a result whatever >> actions it would take would be much harsher than what we do here. >> > > That's the more important point. > > Ross > >> -Bertrand >> >> - >> 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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 8 May 2013 02:20, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler > wrote: > > ...I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained > > support.. > > URL? Sorry, working from mobile device while travelling. I proposed creating a board like structure and formalising shepherd role. Very similar to Chris' proposal but leaving overhead with IPMC rather than moving to board. > > > ...In the absence of something else with teeth then I'm +1 for > > probationary TLPs as proposed by Chris as long as we stop accepting > > projects that are likely to run into problems according to our > > collective experience > > If you're able to find out that a podling will cause problems in the > future, or that its mentors will become inactive, maybe I should hire > you for this lottery betting club ;-) > Hehe - fair comment. I was thinking, for example, of BlueSky - the archives show my concern that was ignored and ultimately shown to be right. A counter example is OpenMeetings who addressed my concerns, came back and graduated quickly and smoothly. I'm not suggesting its always possible to get it right, but I do think we can be more rigorous in general. > Apart from that I agree that the board doesn't have cycles to handle > problematic podlings or missing mentors, and as a result whatever > actions it would take would be much harsher than what we do here. > That's the more important point. Ross > -Bertrand > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 8, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > The probationary PMC proposal of Chris' which Greg is championing > gives teeth to the whole process. That's what the IPMC needs - teeth. Shuttling the kids off to the grandparents, even if they have all their teeth, is not the way to go. :) > But it also needs a mechanism for providing the support needed by some > projects (or it needs to stop accepting those projects in the first > place - they are usually fairly easy to spot). How often does the IPMC > reject a proposal? Why reject a proposal? Just put it on a queue until it's able to get the requisite two active mentors. It's that simple. Regards, Alan
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 8, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Benson Margulies > wrote: >> ...I continue to hope for consensus on the thing I wrote... > > I had another look at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals and I > like it. > > While asking all podlings to confirm their current champion (which > your proposal implicitly requires) we might add Alan's proposal to > "fire all mentors", or rather just ask them to reconfirm their current > commitments, either just once or as an annual spring cleaning > operation. Do that, remove inactive mentors and see where that leaves > existing podlings. I am against watering down the role of the mentors. What this proposal is basically results in is doing away multiple mentors for a podling and whittling it down to one mentor whose name is now champion. Clearly not the way to go. Let's ask ourselves, if each podling had two active mentors, what problems would be left for the Incubator? Not a whole heck of a lot. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > ...I continue to hope for consensus on the thing I wrote... I had another look at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals and I like it. While asking all podlings to confirm their current champion (which your proposal implicitly requires) we might add Alan's proposal to "fire all mentors", or rather just ask them to reconfirm their current commitments, either just once or as an annual spring cleaning operation. Do that, remove inactive mentors and see where that leaves existing podlings. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
I perceive here that we have reached a favorite knot: the tension between 'mentor as coach' and 'mentor as supervisor'. This PMC's job, as delegated by the board, is supervision. If the mentors don't supervise, who will? On the other hand, the very term, 'mentor', is much more suggestive of 'coach' than 'supervisor'. My proposal tries to deal with a bit of this by focusing on the champion, asking that person to sign up to at least feeling supervisory once a month. To those who felt potentially oppressed by my monthly micro-report, please recall: I proposed to glue that job to the champion, only bringing other mentors into it in case of need and by request. It has no routine monthly reporting requirement for mentors, per se. Ross' alternative, which has antecedents in previous discussions, goes in the direction I might label as "let 'mentors' be mentors", a bit, by formalizing shepherds to give consistent supervision. We could, ring any number of changes on that theme, including requiring every podling to launch with N mentors and M supervisors. I continue to hope for consensus on the thing I wrote. That does not make me opposed to Ross, or Alan, or any other thoughtful ideas about additional changes. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler > wrote: >> ...I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained >> support.. > > URL? > >> ...In the absence of something else with teeth then I'm +1 for >> probationary TLPs as proposed by Chris as long as we stop accepting >> projects that are likely to run into problems according to our >> collective experience > > If you're able to find out that a podling will cause problems in the > future, or that its mentors will become inactive, maybe I should hire > you for this lottery betting club ;-) > > Apart from that I agree that the board doesn't have cycles to handle > problematic podlings or missing mentors, and as a result whatever > actions it would take would be much harsher than what we do here. > > -Bertrand > > - > 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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > ...I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained > support.. URL? > ...In the absence of something else with teeth then I'm +1 for > probationary TLPs as proposed by Chris as long as we stop accepting > projects that are likely to run into problems according to our > collective experience If you're able to find out that a podling will cause problems in the future, or that its mentors will become inactive, maybe I should hire you for this lottery betting club ;-) Apart from that I agree that the board doesn't have cycles to handle problematic podlings or missing mentors, and as a result whatever actions it would take would be much harsher than what we do here. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Benson Margulies > wrote: >> >> Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt. >> >> In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if >> those discussions drove some of us to distraction. >> >> A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote: >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals >> > > All the rest of this aside, in your wiki page at 2.2 it says - "When a > podling reports, it is absolutely required to provide a list of > releases." - could something like the following change to the report > template generation script be enough for that (do you need a list or > is just the last release enough?): > > Index: clutch2report.py > === > --- clutch2report.py(revision 1479828) > +++ clutch2report.py(working copy) > @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ > > How has the project developed since the last report? > > +Date of last release: > + > Please check this [ ] when you have filled in the report for $name. > > Signed-off-by: > >...ant This seems harmless and useful so I'll commit it unless anyone objects. Benson, let me know if its enough for you. That will at least give 25% of the things you've suggested in the proposal. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On 7 May 2013 21:15, Greg Stein wrote: > On a whole different direction, one way to "scale" is to shift from > Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would > effectively be a "TLP on probation". The Champion, Mentors, and Board > would be providing oversight. > > I would posit that the Board is more capable of oversight than the > IPMC. The Directors have signed up to spend a lot of time -- more than > we expect of most volunteers. Not to mention the Board reviews 50+ > reports every month. Another five won't kill the Board :-P > > Thus, I might suggest that a proposed-podling may want to try the > above approach. (I dunno if the Board would agree, but somebody has to > formally ask!) It doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that *occasionally* the IPMC is accepting projects based on the good intentions of mentors who subsequently are unable to fulfill their obligations. I do agree that the board would notice such cases (as does the IPMC in most cases). What would it do then? It would probably provide general advice, possibly pointing to the IPMC or to ComDev and revisit in the next report. If nothing improves then the board would likely shut down the project. I agree with Greg that the board has the cycles to read more reviews (hell, most of the directors, if not all, already read all the podling reports), however, it doesn't have the cycles to fix podlings that are having difficulties. It also doesn't have the cycles to do IP review on releases as well as the general guidance that happens here (which despite the frequent flamewars about structure is often useful). I don't see that changing from a podling to a probationary TLP makes any difference to the problem Benson is trying to address. That said, I don't think the current proposal of adding more checks and balances makes any difference either. The probationary PMC proposal of Chris' which Greg is championing gives teeth to the whole process. That's what the IPMC needs - teeth. But it also needs a mechanism for providing the support needed by some projects (or it needs to stop accepting those projects in the first place - they are usually fairly easy to spot). How often does the IPMC reject a proposal? I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained support. In the absence of something else with teeth then I'm +1 for probationary TLPs as proposed by Chris as long as we stop accepting projects that are likely to run into problems according to our collective experience. Ross > > Cheers, > -g > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Upayavira wrote: >> The problem that most podlings I've been involved with, whilst having >> six mentors, have ended up with just me playing any part. On paper, it >> looks like these podlings are in a great place, in fact, they only have >> a single active mentor. >> >> What is wanted is to know who is, and who isn't active. To spot >> problems. Benson's idea is to say that a simple 'I'm here' message would >> really help the incubator PMC. I'd agree with that. The question is, >> who's job is it to track all this. Should the PMC go look and do all the >> leg-work, or should projects and their mentors take some of the load? >> Really, the more responsibility is centralised, the less the incubator >> will scale. Looking for ways that mentors can show their involvement is >> a good thing. I guess that could be automated (grep through mail >> archives for mentor email addresses each month), but until that happens, >> I'd say it would be a good thing for mentors/champions to take some of >> that load off the incubator PMC. It need merely be a reply to a Marvin >> 'are you there' email. >> >> Upayavira >> >> >> On Tue, May 7, 2013, at 04:37 PM, Tim Williams wrote: >>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Benson Margulies >>> wrote: >>> > There was a consensus to add the Champion role, and we haven't even >>> > tried it seriously, and now you propose to eliminate it. That doesn't >>> > seem reasonable to me. I'd rather try to make it useful and then >>> > evaluate it. In other words, +1 to Bertrand. >>> > >>> > 'Holding mentors to their responsibility' as a completely generic >>> > concept is an idea that constantly fails to reach a consensus, due to >>> > the 'volunteer dilemma'. >>> > >>> > For others in this thread, I completely disagree that a monthly one >>> > line edit to the XML file or a one line email is an unreasonable >>> > burden. >>> >>> Fair enough, disagree. >>> >>> > Any mentor, let alone champion, for whom that is an >>> > unreasonable burden should not have signed up in the first place. >>> >>> That's unfair. I signed up to *mentor* not send silly heartbeat >>> checks that exist because other podling's mentors failed to live up to >>> their responsibility. This feels beyond the minimal governance >>> necessary and a solution to the wrong problem. It'd helpful to say >>> precisely what problem that this heartbeat is intended to solve, in >>> that way, we are affor
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 7, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote: >> >> On May 7, 2013, at 9:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> >>> On a whole different direction, one way to "scale" is to shift from >>> Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would >>> effectively be a "TLP on probation". The Champion, Mentors, and Board >>> would be providing oversight. >>> >>> I would posit that the Board is more capable of oversight than the >>> IPMC. The Directors have signed up to spend a lot of time -- more than >>> we expect of most volunteers. Not to mention the Board reviews 50+ >>> reports every month. Another five won't kill the Board :-P >>> >>> Thus, I might suggest that a proposed-podling may want to try the >>> above approach. (I dunno if the Board would agree, but somebody has to >>> formally ask!) >> >> This pre-supposes that the problem is the IPMC and not the mentors. If the >> board members have the spare time to work on incubators then I recommend >> they come over to the IPMC and help out. > > There is a difference in responsibilities. The Board would review, and > would shut it down if it goes wrong. That is very different from > stepping in to directly guide. Sorry, I meant board members as individuals joining the IPMC. You would be able to do the same thing, no? > If the probationary TLP is not functioning properly > (mentors/champion/podling are not up to par), then it will get > noticed. I think the IPMC doesn't really notice/correct for this, so > yeah: that *is* my pre-supposition. I also think the Board is capable > of doing this, rather than needing the IPMC layer between the podling > and the Board. Then the IPMC needs to be fixed. Shuttling the kids off to the grandparents is not a solution. The IPMC needs to be fixed. > I also feel reporting directly to the Board is necessary education. > And part of the difference is that the Board reviews/discusses the > reports. The IPMC does not have any discussion. The shepherds may set > off some discussion, so they are a good way to try and get some > IPMC-level review/discussion going. You're describing an dysfunctional Incubator PMC. Shepherds are a distraction from the fact that mentors are not doing their jobs and the IPMC seems unwilling to hold them responsible. > Note: this approach absolutely follows your basic point: Mentors need > to step up and do what they volunteered for. There is nobody to fill > in for their absence, other than the probationary TLP itself. The > Board certainly will not be doing any hand-holding. (and they might be > a bit more ruthless than the IPMC) Because the mentors are not doing their jobs, the podlings, which are on probation projects to begin with, are now to be probationary top level projects, under those very same absent mentors, under the auspices of the Board, while the IPMC does what? Sorry, but that sounds like double secret probation. ;) How long is the board going to do this? This seems, to me, to be adding more obfuscation in an orthogonal direction to that of shuttling responsibilities over to champions. Both directions, imho, are distractions from the real hard work ahead. Just my 2 cents. :) Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote: > > On May 7, 2013, at 9:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> On a whole different direction, one way to "scale" is to shift from >> Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would >> effectively be a "TLP on probation". The Champion, Mentors, and Board >> would be providing oversight. >> >> I would posit that the Board is more capable of oversight than the >> IPMC. The Directors have signed up to spend a lot of time -- more than >> we expect of most volunteers. Not to mention the Board reviews 50+ >> reports every month. Another five won't kill the Board :-P >> >> Thus, I might suggest that a proposed-podling may want to try the >> above approach. (I dunno if the Board would agree, but somebody has to >> formally ask!) > > This pre-supposes that the problem is the IPMC and not the mentors. If the > board members have the spare time to work on incubators then I recommend they > come over to the IPMC and help out. There is a difference in responsibilities. The Board would review, and would shut it down if it goes wrong. That is very different from stepping in to directly guide. If the probationary TLP is not functioning properly (mentors/champion/podling are not up to par), then it will get noticed. I think the IPMC doesn't really notice/correct for this, so yeah: that *is* my pre-supposition. I also think the Board is capable of doing this, rather than needing the IPMC layer between the podling and the Board. I also feel reporting directly to the Board is necessary education. And part of the difference is that the Board reviews/discusses the reports. The IPMC does not have any discussion. The shepherds may set off some discussion, so they are a good way to try and get some IPMC-level review/discussion going. Note: this approach absolutely follows your basic point: Mentors need to step up and do what they volunteered for. There is nobody to fill in for their absence, other than the probationary TLP itself. The Board certainly will not be doing any hand-holding. (and they might be a bit more ruthless than the IPMC) Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
You go girl! Spot on. Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2013, at 12:54 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote: > > On May 7, 2013, at 4:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote: >>> ...Let's get rid of champions and shepherds and hold the mentors to their >>> responsibilities >> >> The problem with mentors is when you have 5 of them it's unclear who's >> in charge exactly. > > Why does someone need to be in charge? The real problem is that we have five > mentors four, or more, of which do not do the job to which they signed up for. > > All we're doing is shuffling responsibilities around with the hopes that the > next person will be more responsible than the previous one. > >> The goal of the champion's role clarification was to have a single >> point of contact and responsibility for contacts with the incubator >> PMC - similar to a project's PMC chair role. >> >> So basically you have: >> >> A champion, who's a mentor, but also the primary point of contact with >> the IPMC, makes sure reports are done in time and watches the podling >> for lack of mentoring if that happens. >> >> Mentors, who are primarily tasked with coaching the podling. > > I'm hearing Benson's proposal accurately rephrased. > > We're pushing responsibilities which seemed "too much" for three or more > mentors over to a single mentor and diluting the responsibilities into > non-accountable tasks such as coaching. > > What I'm worried about is that were merely shuffling responsibilities around > without really coming to a consensus as to what to do when volunteers don't > do the job they signed up for. Until we have an answer for that we'll > continuously have this conversation every other quarter as we shuffle > responsibilities around again. > > The myth that we seem to be holding dear is that we cannot hold volunteers > accountable for the tasks they signed up for. Maybe if we did hold > volunteers accountable , they would take their responsibilities seriously and > we would have a clearer picture as to what kind of help to expect as we > discuss the IPMCs problems. > > > Regards, > Alan > > > - > 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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 7, 2013, at 9:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On a whole different direction, one way to "scale" is to shift from > Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would > effectively be a "TLP on probation". The Champion, Mentors, and Board > would be providing oversight. > > I would posit that the Board is more capable of oversight than the > IPMC. The Directors have signed up to spend a lot of time -- more than > we expect of most volunteers. Not to mention the Board reviews 50+ > reports every month. Another five won't kill the Board :-P > > Thus, I might suggest that a proposed-podling may want to try the > above approach. (I dunno if the Board would agree, but somebody has to > formally ask!) This pre-supposes that the problem is the IPMC and not the mentors. If the board members have the spare time to work on incubators then I recommend they come over to the IPMC and help out. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 7, 2013, at 4:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote: >> ...Let's get rid of champions and shepherds and hold the mentors to their >> responsibilities > > The problem with mentors is when you have 5 of them it's unclear who's > in charge exactly. Why does someone need to be in charge? The real problem is that we have five mentors four, or more, of which do not do the job to which they signed up for. All we're doing is shuffling responsibilities around with the hopes that the next person will be more responsible than the previous one. > The goal of the champion's role clarification was to have a single > point of contact and responsibility for contacts with the incubator > PMC - similar to a project's PMC chair role. > > So basically you have: > > A champion, who's a mentor, but also the primary point of contact with > the IPMC, makes sure reports are done in time and watches the podling > for lack of mentoring if that happens. > > Mentors, who are primarily tasked with coaching the podling. I'm hearing Benson's proposal accurately rephrased. We're pushing responsibilities which seemed "too much" for three or more mentors over to a single mentor and diluting the responsibilities into non-accountable tasks such as coaching. What I'm worried about is that were merely shuffling responsibilities around without really coming to a consensus as to what to do when volunteers don't do the job they signed up for. Until we have an answer for that we'll continuously have this conversation every other quarter as we shuffle responsibilities around again. The myth that we seem to be holding dear is that we cannot hold volunteers accountable for the tasks they signed up for. Maybe if we did hold volunteers accountable , they would take their responsibilities seriously and we would have a clearer picture as to what kind of help to expect as we discuss the IPMCs problems. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
I would posit the exact same thing. +1 my friend. This has been my whole point all along. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ -Original Message- From: Greg Stein Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:15 PM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC >On a whole different direction, one way to "scale" is to shift from >Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would >effectively be a "TLP on probation". The Champion, Mentors, and Board >would be providing oversight. > >I would posit that the Board is more capable of oversight than the >IPMC. The Directors have signed up to spend a lot of time -- more than >we expect of most volunteers. Not to mention the Board reviews 50+ >reports every month. Another five won't kill the Board :-P > >Thus, I might suggest that a proposed-podling may want to try the >above approach. (I dunno if the Board would agree, but somebody has to >formally ask!) > >Cheers, >-g > > >On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Upayavira wrote: >> The problem that most podlings I've been involved with, whilst having >> six mentors, have ended up with just me playing any part. On paper, it >> looks like these podlings are in a great place, in fact, they only have >> a single active mentor. >> >> What is wanted is to know who is, and who isn't active. To spot >> problems. Benson's idea is to say that a simple 'I'm here' message would >> really help the incubator PMC. I'd agree with that. The question is, >> who's job is it to track all this. Should the PMC go look and do all the >> leg-work, or should projects and their mentors take some of the load? >> Really, the more responsibility is centralised, the less the incubator >> will scale. Looking for ways that mentors can show their involvement is >> a good thing. I guess that could be automated (grep through mail >> archives for mentor email addresses each month), but until that happens, >> I'd say it would be a good thing for mentors/champions to take some of >> that load off the incubator PMC. It need merely be a reply to a Marvin >> 'are you there' email. >> >> Upayavira >> >> >> On Tue, May 7, 2013, at 04:37 PM, Tim Williams wrote: >>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Benson Margulies >>> >>> wrote: >>> > There was a consensus to add the Champion role, and we haven't even >>> > tried it seriously, and now you propose to eliminate it. That >>>doesn't >>> > seem reasonable to me. I'd rather try to make it useful and then >>> > evaluate it. In other words, +1 to Bertrand. >>> > >>> > 'Holding mentors to their responsibility' as a completely generic >>> > concept is an idea that constantly fails to reach a consensus, due to >>> > the 'volunteer dilemma'. >>> > >>> > For others in this thread, I completely disagree that a monthly one >>> > line edit to the XML file or a one line email is an unreasonable >>> > burden. >>> >>> Fair enough, disagree. >>> >>> > Any mentor, let alone champion, for whom that is an >>> > unreasonable burden should not have signed up in the first place. >>> >>> That's unfair. I signed up to *mentor* not send silly heartbeat >>> checks that exist because other podling's mentors failed to live up to >>> their responsibility. This feels beyond the minimal governance >>> necessary and a solution to the wrong problem. It'd helpful to say >>> precisely what problem that this heartbeat is intended to solve, in >>> that way, we are afforded the opportunity to propose an alternative >>> solution - for example, by focusing on highlighting the problem >>> mentors/podlings. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> --tim >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: gener
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On a whole different direction, one way to "scale" is to shift from Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would effectively be a "TLP on probation". The Champion, Mentors, and Board would be providing oversight. I would posit that the Board is more capable of oversight than the IPMC. The Directors have signed up to spend a lot of time -- more than we expect of most volunteers. Not to mention the Board reviews 50+ reports every month. Another five won't kill the Board :-P Thus, I might suggest that a proposed-podling may want to try the above approach. (I dunno if the Board would agree, but somebody has to formally ask!) Cheers, -g On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Upayavira wrote: > The problem that most podlings I've been involved with, whilst having > six mentors, have ended up with just me playing any part. On paper, it > looks like these podlings are in a great place, in fact, they only have > a single active mentor. > > What is wanted is to know who is, and who isn't active. To spot > problems. Benson's idea is to say that a simple 'I'm here' message would > really help the incubator PMC. I'd agree with that. The question is, > who's job is it to track all this. Should the PMC go look and do all the > leg-work, or should projects and their mentors take some of the load? > Really, the more responsibility is centralised, the less the incubator > will scale. Looking for ways that mentors can show their involvement is > a good thing. I guess that could be automated (grep through mail > archives for mentor email addresses each month), but until that happens, > I'd say it would be a good thing for mentors/champions to take some of > that load off the incubator PMC. It need merely be a reply to a Marvin > 'are you there' email. > > Upayavira > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013, at 04:37 PM, Tim Williams wrote: >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Benson Margulies >> wrote: >> > There was a consensus to add the Champion role, and we haven't even >> > tried it seriously, and now you propose to eliminate it. That doesn't >> > seem reasonable to me. I'd rather try to make it useful and then >> > evaluate it. In other words, +1 to Bertrand. >> > >> > 'Holding mentors to their responsibility' as a completely generic >> > concept is an idea that constantly fails to reach a consensus, due to >> > the 'volunteer dilemma'. >> > >> > For others in this thread, I completely disagree that a monthly one >> > line edit to the XML file or a one line email is an unreasonable >> > burden. >> >> Fair enough, disagree. >> >> > Any mentor, let alone champion, for whom that is an >> > unreasonable burden should not have signed up in the first place. >> >> That's unfair. I signed up to *mentor* not send silly heartbeat >> checks that exist because other podling's mentors failed to live up to >> their responsibility. This feels beyond the minimal governance >> necessary and a solution to the wrong problem. It'd helpful to say >> precisely what problem that this heartbeat is intended to solve, in >> that way, we are afforded the opportunity to propose an alternative >> solution - for example, by focusing on highlighting the problem >> mentors/podlings. >> >> Thanks, >> --tim >> >> - >> 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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Not really. It's a heartbeat/health-check like any other distributed, unreliable system. I was tempted to say it's a social implementation of STONITH, but that might send the wrong message. ;) On 8 May 2013 00:53, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 May 2013 08:56, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Tim Williams > wrote: > >> ...I signed up to *mentor* not send silly heartbeat > >> checks that exist because other podling's mentors failed to live up to > >> their responsibility... > > > > 0 0 1 * * echo "Hi, the FOO podling is alive." | mail -s "Hi folks" > > general@incubator.apache.org > > :-D > > On a serious note Tim does make a good point. Solving the problem of > identifying podlings with inadequate mentoring by asking active > mentors to be more active seems to be flawed. > > Ross > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- NS
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On 7 May 2013 08:56, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Tim Williams wrote: >> ...I signed up to *mentor* not send silly heartbeat >> checks that exist because other podling's mentors failed to live up to >> their responsibility... > > 0 0 1 * * echo "Hi, the FOO podling is alive." | mail -s "Hi folks" > general@incubator.apache.org :-D On a serious note Tim does make a good point. Solving the problem of identifying podlings with inadequate mentoring by asking active mentors to be more active seems to be flawed. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On 7 May 2013 16:55, Upayavira wrote: > I guess that could be automated (grep through mail > archives for mentor email addresses each month), but until that > happens[...] > This could be done in a one-off fashion with a simple sh pipe. I'm not fond of to addressing social problems with technological solutions, but a quick automated report might be a useful pro-active tool for the IPMC. Mailing list activity is a fairly common metric across the foundation. (Though, I expect with a healthy project, visible mentor activity might be very light.) -- NS
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Tim Williams wrote: > ...I signed up to *mentor* not send silly heartbeat > checks that exist because other podling's mentors failed to live up to > their responsibility... 0 0 1 * * echo "Hi, the FOO podling is alive." | mail -s "Hi folks" general@incubator.apache.org -Bertrand (ducks and runs) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
The problem that most podlings I've been involved with, whilst having six mentors, have ended up with just me playing any part. On paper, it looks like these podlings are in a great place, in fact, they only have a single active mentor. What is wanted is to know who is, and who isn't active. To spot problems. Benson's idea is to say that a simple 'I'm here' message would really help the incubator PMC. I'd agree with that. The question is, who's job is it to track all this. Should the PMC go look and do all the leg-work, or should projects and their mentors take some of the load? Really, the more responsibility is centralised, the less the incubator will scale. Looking for ways that mentors can show their involvement is a good thing. I guess that could be automated (grep through mail archives for mentor email addresses each month), but until that happens, I'd say it would be a good thing for mentors/champions to take some of that load off the incubator PMC. It need merely be a reply to a Marvin 'are you there' email. Upayavira On Tue, May 7, 2013, at 04:37 PM, Tim Williams wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Benson Margulies > wrote: > > There was a consensus to add the Champion role, and we haven't even > > tried it seriously, and now you propose to eliminate it. That doesn't > > seem reasonable to me. I'd rather try to make it useful and then > > evaluate it. In other words, +1 to Bertrand. > > > > 'Holding mentors to their responsibility' as a completely generic > > concept is an idea that constantly fails to reach a consensus, due to > > the 'volunteer dilemma'. > > > > For others in this thread, I completely disagree that a monthly one > > line edit to the XML file or a one line email is an unreasonable > > burden. > > Fair enough, disagree. > > > Any mentor, let alone champion, for whom that is an > > unreasonable burden should not have signed up in the first place. > > That's unfair. I signed up to *mentor* not send silly heartbeat > checks that exist because other podling's mentors failed to live up to > their responsibility. This feels beyond the minimal governance > necessary and a solution to the wrong problem. It'd helpful to say > precisely what problem that this heartbeat is intended to solve, in > that way, we are afforded the opportunity to propose an alternative > solution - for example, by focusing on highlighting the problem > mentors/podlings. > > Thanks, > --tim > > - > 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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > There was a consensus to add the Champion role, and we haven't even > tried it seriously, and now you propose to eliminate it. That doesn't > seem reasonable to me. I'd rather try to make it useful and then > evaluate it. In other words, +1 to Bertrand. > > 'Holding mentors to their responsibility' as a completely generic > concept is an idea that constantly fails to reach a consensus, due to > the 'volunteer dilemma'. > > For others in this thread, I completely disagree that a monthly one > line edit to the XML file or a one line email is an unreasonable > burden. Fair enough, disagree. > Any mentor, let alone champion, for whom that is an > unreasonable burden should not have signed up in the first place. That's unfair. I signed up to *mentor* not send silly heartbeat checks that exist because other podling's mentors failed to live up to their responsibility. This feels beyond the minimal governance necessary and a solution to the wrong problem. It'd helpful to say precisely what problem that this heartbeat is intended to solve, in that way, we are afforded the opportunity to propose an alternative solution - for example, by focusing on highlighting the problem mentors/podlings. Thanks, --tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
There was a consensus to add the Champion role, and we haven't even tried it seriously, and now you propose to eliminate it. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. I'd rather try to make it useful and then evaluate it. In other words, +1 to Bertrand. 'Holding mentors to their responsibility' as a completely generic concept is an idea that constantly fails to reach a consensus, due to the 'volunteer dilemma'. For others in this thread, I completely disagree that a monthly one line edit to the XML file or a one line email is an unreasonable burden. Any mentor, let alone champion, for whom that is an unreasonable burden should not have signed up in the first place. I am limiting myself to one message on this thread per day, at most, just so you all know. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote: > On May 5, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt. >> >> In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if >> those discussions drove some of us to distraction. >> >> A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote: >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals >> >> The TL;DR version of this is: >> >> 1: let's take Champions seriously as a role >> 2: let's ask for a minimal heartbeat from every podling every month > > What we're virtually left with is one mentor, now called a champion. > Removing hard responsibilities from the mentor effectively nullifies the > mentor role. > > Let's get rid of champions and shepherds and hold the mentors to their > responsibilities. > > > Regards, > Alan > > > > - > 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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote: > ...Let's get rid of champions and shepherds and hold the mentors to their > responsibilities The problem with mentors is when you have 5 of them it's unclear who's in charge exactly. The goal of the champion's role clarification was to have a single point of contact and responsibility for contacts with the incubator PMC - similar to a project's PMC chair role. So basically you have: A champion, who's a mentor, but also the primary point of contact with the IPMC, makes sure reports are done in time and watches the podling for lack of mentoring if that happens. Mentors, who are primarily tasked with coaching the podling. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt. > > In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if > those discussions drove some of us to distraction. > > A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote: > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals > All the rest of this aside, in your wiki page at 2.2 it says - "When a podling reports, it is absolutely required to provide a list of releases." - could something like the following change to the report template generation script be enough for that (do you need a list or is just the last release enough?): Index: clutch2report.py === --- clutch2report.py(revision 1479828) +++ clutch2report.py(working copy) @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ How has the project developed since the last report? +Date of last release: + Please check this [ ] when you have filled in the report for $name. Signed-off-by: ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 5, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt. > > In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if > those discussions drove some of us to distraction. > > A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote: > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals > > The TL;DR version of this is: > > 1: let's take Champions seriously as a role > 2: let's ask for a minimal heartbeat from every podling every month What we're virtually left with is one mentor, now called a champion. Removing hard responsibilities from the mentor effectively nullifies the mentor role. Let's get rid of champions and shepherds and hold the mentors to their responsibilities. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Chen, Pei wrote: > I have to agree with Tim here if a champion has to manually generate this > report: "a monthly report that says simple heartbeat that says podling is > alive and the mentors are on board"? > However, I think something like this can be automated. What if we had a > script that counts the total number of emails sent by the mentors to the > respective mailing lists each month? If it's <1, then raise an warning? > > --Pei > Make sure this script would include PPMC private list. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
I have to agree with Tim here if a champion has to manually generate this report: "a monthly report that says simple heartbeat that says podling is alive and the mentors are on board"? However, I think something like this can be automated. What if we had a script that counts the total number of emails sent by the mentors to the respective mailing lists each month? If it's <1, then raise an warning? --Pei > -Original Message- > From: Tim Williams [mailto:william...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 7:24 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Benson Margulies > wrote: > > Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt. > > > > In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even > > if those discussions drove some of us to distraction. > > > > A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote: > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals > > > > The TL;DR version of this is: > > > > 1: let's take Champions seriously as a role > > 2: let's ask for a minimal heartbeat from every podling every month > > Monthly reporting is overly burdensome (yes, even a tiny-little-heartbeat > report). Let's please not add overhead/burden to healthy podlings for the > sake of the few unhealthy. > > Thanks, > --tim > > - > 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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Hi, On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > ...I consider that proposal adopted, and I'm looking to build on it, by > adding a few specifics... Sounds good to me - we haven't really acted on the clarifications to the champion role that we added a while ago to [1], Benson's proposal is the logical next step. -Bertrand [1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Champion - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt. > > In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if > those discussions drove some of us to distraction. > > A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote: > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals > > The TL;DR version of this is: > > 1: let's take Champions seriously as a role > 2: let's ask for a minimal heartbeat from every podling every month Monthly reporting is overly burdensome (yes, even a tiny-little-heartbeat report). Let's please not add overhead/burden to healthy podlings for the sake of the few unhealthy. Thanks, --tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Chris, I consider that proposal adopted, and I'm looking to build on it, by adding a few specifics. I plan to ask for helpers to ensure that every project has a Champion, for starts. --benson On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) wrote: > Hey Guys, > > Sorry but what are we discussing that's different from formalizing > the role of the Champion, this thread originally started by Bertrand, > and seconded by me and numerous others [1]? > > Cheers, > Chris > > [1] http://s.apache.org/U6w > ++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++ > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Upayavira > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" > Date: Sunday, May 5, 2013 10:43 PM > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" > Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC > >>Having read your wiki post, I find it a simple, considered upping of the >>game, which I think would be worth the effort of trying, especially as >>the mini-reports don't get to the board unless there are issues. There >>really could do with being a little more 'cost' to being a podling, or a >>mentor for that matter, and this proposal moves gently in that >>direction. >> >>If folks approve, we'll need to seek champions for all existing >>podlings, and decide what to do about those for which we cannot identify >>one. >> >>Upayavira >> >>On Mon, May 6, 2013, at 02:56 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: >>> Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt. >>> >>> In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if >>> those discussions drove some of us to distraction. >>> >>> A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote: >>> >>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals >>> >>> The TL;DR version of this is: >>> >>> 1: let's take Champions seriously as a role >>> 2: let's ask for a minimal heartbeat from every podling every month >>> >>> As the person responsible for filing the report, it seems to me that I >>> could, with some justification, ask the Champions and mentors to please >>> comply with these ideas, with the goal of having a more accurate picture >>> to >>> present. However, I'd rather seek a consensus for these, or something >>> like >>> them, as a formal procedure. >>> >>> Note that I labelled this thread [META DISCUSS]. I invite people with >>> views >>> on these ideas to start a thread or threads as appropriate. I would ask >>> people, as a favor to me and others, not to use these ideas as a >>> launchpad >>> 'let's radically restructure instead.' These will reach a consensus or >>> not, >>> and other proposals will reach a consensus or not, but I submit that it >>> is >>> easier on us all to deal with them one-at-a-time. >>> >>> --benson >> >>- >>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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Hey Guys, Sorry but what are we discussing that's different from formalizing the role of the Champion, this thread originally started by Bertrand, and seconded by me and numerous others [1]? Cheers, Chris [1] http://s.apache.org/U6w ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ -Original Message- From: Upayavira Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Sunday, May 5, 2013 10:43 PM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC >Having read your wiki post, I find it a simple, considered upping of the >game, which I think would be worth the effort of trying, especially as >the mini-reports don't get to the board unless there are issues. There >really could do with being a little more 'cost' to being a podling, or a >mentor for that matter, and this proposal moves gently in that >direction. > >If folks approve, we'll need to seek champions for all existing >podlings, and decide what to do about those for which we cannot identify >one. > >Upayavira > >On Mon, May 6, 2013, at 02:56 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt. >> >> In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if >> those discussions drove some of us to distraction. >> >> A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote: >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals >> >> The TL;DR version of this is: >> >> 1: let's take Champions seriously as a role >> 2: let's ask for a minimal heartbeat from every podling every month >> >> As the person responsible for filing the report, it seems to me that I >> could, with some justification, ask the Champions and mentors to please >> comply with these ideas, with the goal of having a more accurate picture >> to >> present. However, I'd rather seek a consensus for these, or something >> like >> them, as a formal procedure. >> >> Note that I labelled this thread [META DISCUSS]. I invite people with >> views >> on these ideas to start a thread or threads as appropriate. I would ask >> people, as a favor to me and others, not to use these ideas as a >> launchpad >> 'let's radically restructure instead.' These will reach a consensus or >> not, >> and other proposals will reach a consensus or not, but I submit that it >> is >> easier on us all to deal with them one-at-a-time. >> >> --benson > >- >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
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Having read your wiki post, I find it a simple, considered upping of the game, which I think would be worth the effort of trying, especially as the mini-reports don't get to the board unless there are issues. There really could do with being a little more 'cost' to being a podling, or a mentor for that matter, and this proposal moves gently in that direction. If folks approve, we'll need to seek champions for all existing podlings, and decide what to do about those for which we cannot identify one. Upayavira On Mon, May 6, 2013, at 02:56 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt. > > In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if > those discussions drove some of us to distraction. > > A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote: > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals > > The TL;DR version of this is: > > 1: let's take Champions seriously as a role > 2: let's ask for a minimal heartbeat from every podling every month > > As the person responsible for filing the report, it seems to me that I > could, with some justification, ask the Champions and mentors to please > comply with these ideas, with the goal of having a more accurate picture > to > present. However, I'd rather seek a consensus for these, or something > like > them, as a formal procedure. > > Note that I labelled this thread [META DISCUSS]. I invite people with > views > on these ideas to start a thread or threads as appropriate. I would ask > people, as a favor to me and others, not to use these ideas as a > launchpad > 'let's radically restructure instead.' These will reach a consensus or > not, > and other proposals will reach a consensus or not, but I submit that it > is > easier on us all to deal with them one-at-a-time. > > --benson - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
