On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem > either. We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again later > if a community wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave and > then join again. > > > > Some context, over 300 projects have gone through the incubator, 50 are > there currently, each requires a champion and 3 mentors at the start (all > IPMC members), even with some mentors working on multiple podling it's not > surprising the IPMC is 300 people or so. Nor should it be that a large > number of them are inactive as most of the projects they were involved in > have graduated (or retired). > > +1 > > > But despite this some still think it is an issue so we IMO we should > address it, unless they change their minds, and say so here. > > Personally, I don't think that is a reason to reduce the IPMC count. > I think it needs to be established WHY it is thought to be an issue first. >
It encourages drive-by bikeshedding. "I'm an IPMC Member from a few years back. I see $foo, and OMG need to comment on it." Did anybody stop and read the concerns recently raised to the Board? Much of the focus on that email was about such drive-by commenting. Thus, reduce the opportunity for drive-by. Please stop making excuses to keep the status quo. That is pretty much everything that I've seen since that email. -g
