Greg, Would you categorize yourself as one of these drive-by kibitzers?
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:55 AM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:17 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > Since the general@ list is public, I don't think reducing the IPMC > > will stop comments. > > > > So? It is to reduce the number of people who feel empowered to meddle into > everything every podling does. You want to fix general@ ??, then go ahead. > I want to see people who choose not to *participate* in the IPMC [by > subscribing to private@] dropped from the roster. The whole world can chat > on general@. But if you want to be *part* of the IPMC, and want a binding > vote, and want to really throw-in on Incubator matters, then you damned > well better subscribe. > > The basic structure of 200+ people all having "merit" to jump into a > podling's pond is a priori broken. We have *specific* feedback that this is > true. Not a guess. Not some survey. A "letter" signed by numerous > individuals that this is the case. So until the Incubator decides its basic > structure is Wrong(tm), and stops pushing back against that feedback, then > what is a simple reversible change to try and disempower the knuckleheads > who want to throw in, on the good work done by our podlings? ... Right. > Trim the IPMC. > > -g >
