+1, this sounds great to me. Cheers, Chris
On Nov 21, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > To me a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the reports are > misdirected- instead of informing the board about the activities of > the IPMC, it tells them about the podling's activities, which doesn't > scale properly. > > We should be reporting to the board about OUR work, not the work of > the podlings. Podlings should only be brought in for a few specific > examplesto mention. That's the first thing to correct. > > > Once we start reporting about the crap WE did, then we can start figuring > out all the crap that's not getting done by mentors who aren't participating. > It doesn't matter that there are lots of well-intentioned but otherwise > useless > people mentoring projects, the fact is that they only harm the org by not > prodding > these projects along a graduation path or funneling them towards the exit > door. Part > of how they manage to get away with that is that we pretend its important to > a podling > to create a sustainable community around itself, which is something most of > them > have no control over. That is the reason for the long bouts of stalling on > many > levels, we need to do the sane thing and drop that bit of pretense, and yes > even > graduating projects that haven't necessarily met the silly developer diversity > requirements- rules are not appropriate here, only very fuzzy benchmarks. > > WE are responsible for evaluating the progress of our podlings, ALL of them, > and > clutch can help us do that at a basic level as a group. But we need to > figure out, > quickly, how to change the review process for podling reports in a scalable > way > without us all being burnt out all at once. I think the review needs to take > place > over a few days, on the podling's own dev lists, by 3 IPMC members actively > voting > on them. We can still collate the podling reports on the wiki, but the > report we > hand to the board should come from us, and it should be the product of those > reviews. > We can do this wiki-style if we want to, or just have Noel poll this list for > "mentor > comments" to be included in the report. A quick scan of the podling lists > wrt those > report votes should be sufficient to determine if a podling needs more IPMC > representation, > and can be done by Noel or collectively if we'd like to start doing more > cross-checking. > > > WDYT? > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: >> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:42 PM >> Subject: Re: should podlings have informal chairs? >> >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Benson Margulies >> <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Sam, >>>> >>>> Do you see any validity in my theory that the ipmc is so large and >>>> diffuse as to be directionless? >>> >>> I don't see that as a necessary consequence. The ASF is large and >>> diffuse, yet each month we pretty consistently get 6+ Directors to >>> review and sign off on each report. The board is careful to not set >>> technical direction, but we do create and track action items, and work >>> to make sure that the individual PMCs are self-governing and get the >>> help that they need from the relevant board committees. >> >> Compare, if you would, the board of six to the ipmc. There aren't six, >> or sixteen, ipmc members who feel it's their job to review every PPMC >> report before the whole business goes to the board. There's a chair, >> who due to his volunteer status like the rest of us, shows more or >> less engagement with the goings-on on this mailing list at different >> times. >> >> The ipmc more or less delegates to the mentors, and passes the PPMC >> reports up to the board, with not much digestive activity in between. >> In this sense I guess I'm trying to agree with you, but I wonder how >> to get a giant committee of people, most of whom signed up just to >> mentor one project, to actually step up and exercise more oversight. >> Of course we've got a few people like Sebb who try to stay on top of >> everything. >> >> Since there are only six board members, they all know that they, >> themselves, have to read this stuff and think about it. If there were >> 106, I doubt that anything would get attended to unless a subset were >> somehow tasked. So I suppose that I'm trying to float the idea that, >> somehow, less than the full ipmc needs to focus. I suppose that the >> committee could create a category of meta-mentor, and people who sign >> up for that role would be signing up to read all the reports and >> perhaps even look over the shoulders a bit of the projects. >> >> Should I believe >> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc that >> there are 878 ipmc members, or is this some sort of ldap artifact? >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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
