Hey Ross,
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013 6:22 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
&g
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 4 Apr 2013 15:17, "Greg Stein" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> > On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 31 March 2013
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> ...If Mentors fall away after "phase 1" ends, it's less of a problem.
> Replacing
> Mentors is less consequential once the code base has reached the "known good
> state" of having made it through the release process
Agreed, though it'
Benson writes:
>> We ask them to make a public statement of commitment that for some
>> period of time (six months) they commit to thinking of themselves _as
>> a PMC_, not just as some sort of diffuse advisors or coaches...
+1 to the change of mentality.
Bertrand replies:
> I like that - I'd s
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>> > On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
>> > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why is it so hard to see that
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> As I see it, the incubator as we have it is a mechanism for coping
> with the lack of mentor commitment. As Ross often writes, it's easy to
> say that Mentors *should* make this commitment, but mentors are
> volunteers, and things happen. U
On 4 April 2013 08:46, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies <
> bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ...Chris proposes that this
> >>> commit
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Having said that, here's an idea that builds on your proposal. There is
> already the opportunity to name the board as the sponsoring organisation.
> Why not say "where the board is willing to sponsor the project it can go
> straight to TLP" (
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> Just a thought.
>
> Chris' solution says 'make mentors the initial PMC'. They vote in other
> project team members as appropriate to be peers. This creates a positive
> egalitarian setup which mirrors that of a PMC, which is a good thing.
>
>
The
On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
> > On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> >> nascent projects i
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> ...How about the following more incremental experiment: we do what
> Upayavira says: we set a higher bar for mentors at podling start time.
> We ask them to make a public statement of commitment that for some
> period of time (six mont
As I see it, the incubator as we have it is a mechanism for coping
with the lack of mentor commitment. As Ross often writes, it's easy to
say that Mentors *should* make this commitment, but mentors are
volunteers, and things happen. Upayavira wonders if Mentor 'harvest
glory' and then wander away.
Just a thought.
Chris' solution says 'make mentors the initial PMC'. They vote in other
project team members as appropriate to be peers. This creates a positive
egalitarian setup which mirrors that of a PMC, which is a good thing.
Much of the problem in the incubator seems to me to be mentor
ina
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
>> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
>
> Because th
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Ant is reflecting a real dilemma here. At Apache, we try to be
> egalitarian, and we try to work by consensus. The natural conclusion
> is that the many people needed to vote on releases are also part of
> the decision-making body for polic
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>>> ...Chris proposes that this
>>> committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
>>> large part, b
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 3 April 2013 14:41, ant elder wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored?
> > Whenever I
> > > look through it, it seems like the problem is tha
On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> ...Chris proposes that this
>> committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
>> large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard
>>
On 3 April 2013 14:41, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored?
> Whenever I
> > look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
> > confusing. It's hardly a wonder people
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored? Whenever I
> look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
> confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit of
> rhetoric. I har
Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored? Whenever I
look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit of
rhetoric. I hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for the
wh
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> As far as I understand your comment, Ant, you mean to say that he problem
> is that there is too much variation in opinion and approach. (Primarily, I
> understand, in relation to releases.)
>
>
Hi Noah, i suggested that one of the problems was
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> ...Chris proposes that this
> committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
> large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard
> from so far has been less than enthusiastic...
That's my case, an
uot;general@incubator.apache.org"
> Date: Monday, April 1, 2013 7:00 AM
> To: general-incubator
> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> majority vote vs consensus)
>
> >On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Mattmann, Chris A
On 2 April 2013 22:18, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Ross' proposal sacrifices some egalitarianism
> to achieve better scaling of both decision-making and supervision.
>
It is not my intention to sacrifice some egalitarianism. My intention is to
allow those who have signed up to mentor projects to g
9 USA
++
-Original Message-
From: Benson Margulies
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:18 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vo
Ant is reflecting a real dilemma here. At Apache, we try to be
egalitarian, and we try to work by consensus. The natural conclusion
is that the many people needed to vote on releases are also part of
the decision-making body for policy that controls those releases. The
dilemma is that consensus doe
As far as I understand your comment, Ant, you mean to say that he problem
is that there is too much variation in opinion and approach. (Primarily, I
understand, in relation to releases.)
This doesn't seem related to the size of the PMC, to me. We're always going
to need a large pool of people with
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> Chris,
>
> What I was trying to do with this particular thread is to identify the
> problems the incubator has before deciding on solutions. If we can get a
> common agreement on that, specific solutions will be much easier for us
> all to accep
al Message-
> >> From: Ross Gardler
> >> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> >> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
> >> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> >> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on persona
ral@incubator.apache.org"
>> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
>> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
>> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
>> majority vote vs consensus)
>>
>> >On 31 March 2013 17:08, Matt
: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> majority vote vs consensus)
>
> >On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is
ator.apache.org"
> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> majority vote vs consensus)
>
> >On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it so hard to see that the
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> I have heard a few people say they "just want to mentor, without the rules
> discussion crap" (see ml). Thats perfectly OK. But what do we need them on
> the IPMC?
One of the chief responsibilities for a Mentor is performing oversigh
Hi Ross,
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
>
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> The Incubator has two acute, serious problems.
>
> 1. First releases are too hard.
No surprise. This is incredible hard to read:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.htm
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 07:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> > We need one set who are 'incubator people' and another who are 'mentors'.
>
> Disenfranchising mentors and hoarding power within a small circle of IPMC
> aristocrats is both unworka
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> We need one set who are 'incubator people' and another who are 'mentors'.
Disenfranchising mentors and hoarding power within a small circle of IPMC
aristocrats is both unworkable and hypocritical.
* It is unworkable because the people who wat
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> ...Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?...
It's not.
Well, maybe it is, but up to a point. The good th
Hi Benson,
-Original Message-
From: Benson Margulies
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 8:02 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
&
> To summarise. The incubator *is* broken (but not necessarily beyond
> repair). We need as many mentors as we can get, and a smaller group of
> people who are delegated responsibility for the incubator. The board
> wants a group of folks to take responsibility for overseeing the early
> life of co
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013, at 01:56 AM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
> > Your position is that the IPMC fails to supervise. The consensus of the
> > IPMC is that this is not true. Otherwise, someone would be reading the
> > monthly report and objecti
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Matthias Friedrich wrote:
>
> As someone who is relatively new to the ASF and who's first behind the
> scenes contact with Apache was the incubation process, I can tell that
> this is absolutely true. Podlings find themselves in a kafkaesque
> world where many rul
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> As Doug points out, votes are structured away
> from the status quo- we don't ever vote to
> continue on with previously agreed to issues
> just to circumvent the voting process.
>
Ok thanks Joe and Doug. So to be absolutely clear, the wor
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> 2) more direct leadership that seeks basic consensus on very
> specific and clear new changes, but doesn't let discussions get weighed down
> with too many options, or stalled by a relative handful of -0s.
The hard work of forging consensu
As the chair here, I start from the premise that I've been invited to serve
as the chair of the incubator as we know it. I have some sympathy for Chris
M's views, but the job I have here is, first and foremost, to facilitate
making the existing thing work. So I expect to be one of the last people t
Personally, I would find IPMC issues much easier to follow if we all
limited threads to more specific topics, and started new threads for new
specific topics. This one is still pretty buried.
On 3/29/2013 1:11 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
...
I don't accept that using yourself as an example of how
rote:
>
>> [Note subject line change for Benson]
>>
>>
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Ross Gardler
>> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
>> Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:09 AM
>> To: general
>
ss Gardler
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:09 AM
> To: general
> Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>
> >We clearly differ with our view if how much is delegated from board to
> >IPMC. The
[Note subject line change for Benson]
Hi Ross,
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:09 AM
To: general
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>We clearly differ with ou
-Original Message-
> >
> > From: Ross Gardler
> > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> > Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
> > To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> > Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs cons
or.apache.org"
> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>
> >I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many actions
> >each month whi
On Thursday, 2013-03-28, Chris Douglas wrote:
[...]
> Is this a question of standing, where material harm needs to be demonstrated?
> The IPMC is needlessly inefficient and abusive of its podlings. Novel
> "compliance" mechanisms are literally invented and argued about on
> general@ during podli
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> Would anyone be willing to write up the text that we would post on the web
>> site someplace to document a procedure for voting upon IPMC membership that
>> reflects this discu
Hey Ross,
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>I do not agree there is no I
Hi Dave,
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:38 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>
>On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:19 A
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> Would anyone be willing to write up the text that we would post on the web
> site someplace to document a procedure for voting upon IPMC membership that
> reflects this discussion? Perhaps we could then lazily converge upon that?
Patch b
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Your position is that the IPMC fails to supervise. The consensus of the
> IPMC is that this is not true. Otherwise, someone would be reading the
> monthly report and objecting to the failure to report 'failure' to the
> board.
"If your st
Chris,
Your position is that the IPMC fails to supervise. The consensus of the
IPMC is that this is not true. Otherwise, someone would be reading the
monthly report and objecting to the failure to report 'failure' to the
board. If you want to change minds about this, you might need to come up
with
I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many actions
each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded. That
is why the IPMC submits a board report.
That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson has
stated he wants to address the specific
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hey Ross,
>
>
I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
>> legally
responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it replaces
>>> it
with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
Would anyone be willing to write up the text that we would post on the web
site someplace to document a procedure for voting upon IPMC membership that
reflects this discussion? Perhaps we could then lazily converge upon that?
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> This sounds like a vote to support the status quo, which isn't
> something we normally do.
The original proposal was limited to VOTEs on personnel issues (misspelled as
"personal"). Has that changed? I hope not.
One of the downsides of re
with previously agreed to issues
just to circumvent the voting process.
>
> From: ant elder
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:29 PM
>Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>
>On Th
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:29 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Alternatively, you could say enough is enough and to end the debate
> you're going to call a vote to demonstrate i've the PMCs support - a
> vote on letting ant stay on. That sounds like you're being nice, but
> in fact you're being clever, becau
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:29 PM, ant elder wrote:
> ...With this new supermajority approach you'd need 75% or more of voters
> to agree with you to get me gone.
>
> Alternatively, you could say enough is enough and to end the debate
> you're going to call a vote to demonstrate i've the PMCs suppor
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
> No more so than they already had.
>
It does Joe, let me give you a more clear example.
Lets imagine i've done something that you deem shows i'm a terrible
incubator mentor, and its not the first time.
There's a big debate within the PMC,
Hey Ross,
>> >I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
>legally
>> >responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it replaces
>>it
>> >with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
>>
>> Please let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my
>>
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 28 Mar 2013 14:04, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Ross,
>
> On 3/27/13 11:33 AM, "Ross Gardler" wrote:
>
> >On 27 Mar 2013 16:43, "Greg Reddin" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:1
No more so than they already had.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
> No what it means Joe is that who chooses the wording of the vote gets
> a lot of control the outcome.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joseph Schaefer
> wrote:
>> Waah. Lo
Hi Ross,
On 3/27/13 11:33 AM, "Ross Gardler" wrote:
>On 27 Mar 2013 16:43, "Greg Reddin" wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
>> > model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
>> >
>>
>> ..
No what it means Joe is that who chooses the wording of the vote gets
a lot of control the outcome.
...ant
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
> Waah. Look this just DEFINES consensus as 75% instead
> of the old 100%. It doesn't throw consensus out the window.
> Please s
Waah. Look this just DEFINES consensus as 75% instead
of the old 100%. It doesn't throw consensus out the window.
Please stop with all of these exaggerations and try to
self-moderate- half of the volume in these debates is all
you talking to yourself.
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:18 AM, ant elder wro
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> It appears to me that we have a consensus here on using a majority system
> with a 3/4 supermajority. I'd like to establish the existence of this
> consensus with a minimum of fuss, and begin to stop wasting everyone's
> time. Our goal he
It appears to me that we have a consensus here on using a majority system
with a 3/4 supermajority. I'd like to establish the existence of this
consensus with a minimum of fuss, and begin to stop wasting everyone's
time. Our goal here is to achieve consensus, not to hold votes. So, I'm
going to tre
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Niall Pemberton
>> wrote:
>>> I think it should be 3/4 majority.
>>
>> I agree that supermajority would be better than simple majority here.
>>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>> I think it should be 3/4 majority.
>
> I agree that supermajority would be better than simple majority here.
> Moving to simple majority seems too radical...
+1 on requiring 3/4 m
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning
> wrote:
> >> One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize
> that a
> >> larger group is much more likely
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> I think it should be 3/4 majority.
I agree that supermajority would be better than simple majority here.
Moving to simple majority seems too radical. Over time it's more
prone to building a PMC that cannot easily agree on things. If
cons
This whole exercise is pointless. Just drop the notion of vetoes for all IPMC
votes and carry on as before.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning wrot
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize that a
>> larger group is much more likely to have "noisy vetoes" by requiring that
>> successful votes have n po
The first thing I'd like to do, coordination-wise, is to call a vote on the
proposal to decide things by majority. I think that this would help with
some of the problems we hit, and we can meanwhile continue to discuss
larger structural changes.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Ross Gardler wrote
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 27 Mar 2013 20:12, "Christian Grobmeier" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this is a very interesting proposal. Let me ask a few questions.
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
> > Why shouldn't the IPMC create an equivalent
Hi,
this is a very interesting proposal. Let me ask a few questions.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Why shouldn't the IPMC create an equivalent to the one item in the above
> governance structure that is missing today. That is why shouldn't it have
> an equivalent of "ASF
On 27 Mar 2013 16:43, "Greg Reddin" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
> > model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
> >
>
> ... [snip] ...
>
>
> > Why can't the IPMC work like that? Well, to
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
> model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
>
... [snip] ...
> Why can't the IPMC work like that? Well, to a large extent it does. Here
> are the same items expressed from
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 15:54, ant elder wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>> Ok, i propose we have an "experiment" [1] where we try having a mentor
>> or two who are not PMC members. Have some other experienc
On 27 March 2013 15:54, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
> Ok, i propose we have an "experiment" [1] where we try having a mentor
> or two who are not PMC members. Have some other experienced mentors
> helping to make sure nothing unfixable can go wr
The incubator is currently of a scale that means it can no longer operate
as a standard consensus driven PMC. It is not that much smaller than the
TLPs part of the foundation. Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
ASF Members
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
>
> Or it might 'work', but some might feel that this large,
> diffuse, group, operating by majority rules is either inconsistent with
> Apache policy or a bad example for the podlings.
Thats more how i see it. Using consensus instead of
I suppose that as chair I ought to be heard from here. I've been off for
Passover for a bit.
In my view, the IPMC manifests two problems. I'd like to label them as
'operational' and 'decision-making'. This thread is about decision-making,
but with some people seeing using terms like 'disfunctional
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013, at 10:44 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > As I said before I'm currently against having mentors who are not
> > Incubator PMC members,
>
> As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in order to
> become a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache mem
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> ...As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in order to
> become
> a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache member (see bottom of [1])...
you don't - Apache members can become IPMC members just by asking, but
others
Hi,
> As I said before I'm currently against having mentors who are not
> Incubator PMC members,
As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in order to become
a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache member (see bottom of [1]).This
may exclude people with practical experie
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:35 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:52 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> ...Your second suggestion sounds like the thing to do to me - separating
>> IPMC-ship and Mentor-ship...
> ...I'd like to
> try this, perhaps as a sort of experiment like we've done for other
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:52 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Your second suggestion sounds like the thing to do to me - separating
> IPMC-ship and Mentor-ship - that would solve several of the problems
> we've being having including this one, it would open up a much bigger
> pool of potential mentors, and
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> So I am proposing now to reconsider Joes original proposal and change our
> community voting to a majority voting unless we restructure the IPMC.
+1 for majority voting on personnel issues for the IPMC.
I'm also fine with requiring a
On 25/03/13 08:41, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Upayavira wrote:
Now, you might argue that mentoring is a lot more than voting, but we
could create another bottleneck in getting release votes through,
requiring votes from incubator PMC members who are not particularly
foc
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> ...We also have 172 IPMC members to date (according committer index).
> Most of the people are not seen often; we have many awol mentors.
> Currently becoming an IPMC member is necessary to become a Mentor. It
> always felt wrong t
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
