On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: >...
> Time is on the side of those who think shepherd institution should die. It > would be better if it died quickly, vacating the report review mindspace > and > making way for Mentor commentary supplemented by reactive IPMC report > feedback. Mentors on the ground *are* the Incubator's analogue to Board > shepherds -- the extra layer is unnecessary and costs too much. It is > harmful > that shepherd reviews are "the way it's done". > I believe the Incubator shepherds exist to help the IPMC with its duties. The shepherds delegate/divide the work needed of the IPMC to review the podling reports, before passing its report up to the Board. The IPMC is an active entity with responsibilities. It has a job to do, and the shepherds provide a way to do that. Rather than waving a hand and saying "the IPMC will review" (and nothing happening cuz everybody thinks everybody else will do it) ... or requiring the VP to do it every month.. the shepherds provide a way for volunteers to assist with the process. There is nothing stopping the IPMC from designating certain Mentors as shepherds for their podlings. Look at the Board: since I am the VP of Subversion, a shepherd is never assigned to that report. I'm the implied shepherd. Anything that the Board needs to convey to the PMC, I'm responsible for that legwork (just like we delegate working with PMCs to shepherds). So if a Mentor is active enough, then put your name on the list to be the shepherd for your podling (and be an IPMC member, of course). That activity wasn't happening in the past, so the shepherds were filling in. Especially when a Mentor is temporarily away. Cheers, -g
