On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > To begin with, I realize that I am tampering with the structure of the IPMC. > > In some ways, the IPMC is just another project. It has members, they > are responsible for supervision of source control and releases. In > other ways, it's very different from the other projects. It's > responsible for bootstrapping projects. So you might look at my > structural proposal as explicitly building extra structure to confront > those challenges. > > The problem I'm looking at is indeed the chronic lack of reliable > mentor presence in the projects, as witnessed (maybe) by the signoff > statistics in January. > > If the IPMC was working 'as designed', the mentors -- the members of > this PMC -- would be supervising, and reviewing and signing off > reports, and we wouldn't need shepherds. That's my logic.
I disagree that the need for a Shepherd would be obviated by better mentor engagement. I think the value of the Shepherds is their external perspective. Mentors are by necessity and nature close to the project. > > Starting from there, over a long period of time, we've seen a number of ideas. > > There's the shepherds as we have them. And perhaps we should just > stick to this. It helps detect and compensate for mentor weakness, and > it avoids building a radically different structure. IMO, this has borne only fruit and should be continued. A radically different structure will take time to implement & then adjust to. > > There's 'tear down the incubator' -- decide that the chronic leakage > of mentors means that the whole system we have is not working. I > can't, personally, state an alternative. > > Thank you for reminding me of the idea of a champion. > > If folks would rather focus on seeing if we can make something of > that, fine with me. > > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Ross Gardler > <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >> Why would adding another formal role solve the problem that saw the >> creation of shepherds (missing mentors)? >> >> Are you tackling a different problem now? >> >> Unless there is a really solid reason for it I would be concerned about >> crating structure in the incubator that isn't present in the ASF proper. >> >> Should this new role be a better use of the existing champion role, >> complete with the handing over of that title to a PPMC member before >> graduation and a progression to PMC chair upon graduation? We discussed >> this some time ago and agreed it was a good idea but we never really >> carried it through. >> >> Ross >> >> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity >> On 13 Jan 2013 08:46, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Right now, a shepherd assignment is a temporary job. It starts as the >>> reports for a cycle begin to come in, and it ends when the shepherd >>> feels that he or she has done what makes sense in terms of reporting >>> to the community and, in some cases, delivering some constructive >>> nudges to the projects. >>> >>> I've been thinking about an alternative, but it may not be popular. >>> >>> In my alternative, the IPMC organizes itself as follows: >>> >>> At the top of the pyramid, tied down to the Aztec altar, is me, the >>> chairman. >>> >>> Next down are the 'vice-chairs', currently known as the shepherds. >>> Each of these people is responsible for a group of projects, dispersed >>> across the reporting cycle. The shepherd, at least, tunes into the >>> reports, but also checks in during the three-month reporting period -- >>> particularly if we have identified issues that the project needs to >>> address. >>> >>> Next we have the mentors, who are 'inside' the projects, offering >>> guidance, coaching, and supervision. However, the fact is that we >>> don't have enough volunteers to have multiple, active, tuned-in >>> mentors for all of the projects all of the time. >>> >>> Last, but hardly least, are the freelance members of the committee, >>> who tune in on things like release reviews. >>> >>> If we adopted this plan, we'd add a shepherd slot to the metadata for >>> each project, and I, as chair, would take action if the designated >>> shepherd wasn't available to do a review for a project in a reporting >>> cycle. Either I'd do it myself, or I'd put out a call for assistance. >>> >>> I'm not going to defend this scheme tooth-and-nail. If folks prefer >>> the current approach, I'll focus on fixing the schedule to make it >>> easier to make it work. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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
