On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din <nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din >> <nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi... >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com> >> wrote: >> >> > PLEASE NOTE! >> >> > >> >> > From the ASF Board: >> >> > >> >> > For now on, all reports to the board for review/inclusion at the >> >> > board meetings will now be due 1 WEEK before the meeting. Reports >> >> > submitted late will be declined and you'll need to resubmit the >> >> > next month. >> >> > >> >> > This means that Incubator reports really need to be finished by the >> end >> >> of >> >> > the FIRST week of the month. >> >> >> >> Why not make it easy? Make incubator reports due by the first of the >> >> month. Doing so doesn't increase workload, doesn't meaningfully >> >> increase latency/relevance, and gives the incubator more of a chance >> >> to recover (and actually obtain a report in time) when a deadline is >> >> missed. >> > >> > IMHO one week before the board meeting as a final date is fine and at the >> > same time will give the chance for review and resolving any issues if >> they >> > exist. >> >> Can you support this belief with evidence? It is not uncommon for >> podlings to miss being included in board report, and this month the >> incubator report itself wasn't reviewed due to it being late. >> >> I can tell you (as a Director) that if those problems are fixed, >> nobody on the board would care if the deadline was mere hours before >> forwarding onto the board, but I do want to point out that there is a >> real problem that needs some solution, even if it isn't the one I >> proposed. >> > > Well from my own experience that this time frame is good, but for some > projects mentors are not that active and hence they are not pushing things > forward till it is too late, and hence either way you will get delayed > reports, only this time you can get more delayed reports. > > I totally understand the point you are trying to make, but what I am trying > to say that time limits are not the problem, from what I saw it is either > the problem of mentors, not being active, or podling developers are not > active or even both, these are the real reasons and having delayed reports > are just one symptom.
I'll agree, but what I would like to see is that incubator taking a greater role in identifying inactive mentors and inactive podlings and taking corrective action. Note: that includes me both in (a) needing to take a greater role and (b) as an inactive mentor for at least one PPMC. To be fair: this month's incubator report demonstrates an intent to do exactly that. Please don't interpret what I am saying as "bad incubator: change", please interpret it as "good incubator: more!". - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
