Woonsan,
I apologize for misreading your intent, but am glad my comment stimulated
you to express your opinions so well.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:48 PM Woonsan Ko wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> Maybe I missed somethings totally, but I intended to express my
> preference about restructuring of IPMC, not
Hi -
> IPMC membership has nothing to do with mentor engagement.
>
> If you are trying to diagnose mentorship, then you need to start over with
> a mentorship discussion. If mentors participating at the IPMC don't
> correlate to their mentor engagement with their podlings, that's something
> to
Just to point out the obvious...
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:33 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>
> Some suggestions:
> 1. Ask all inactive IPMC if they want to continue being on the IPMC and
> see who steps down. Being inactive they are probably not following this
> list so we need to identify and send ea
Hi Ted,
Maybe I missed somethings totally, but I intended to express my
preference about restructuring of IPMC, not PPMCs:
- Keep only people as IPMC members who can really guide, recruit and
review graduations based on their merits shown in the past in this
specific community;
- Keep active mento
+1 option #4.
Based on Justin's fact-finding, these "extra" IPMC members are not the
source of the IPMC's problem. Let's put the conversation about removing
IPMC members to bed so that we can focus on more promising causes and cures.
Best,
Myrle
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:33 AM Justin Mclean
wr
I feel the real issue may be not the number of inactive IPMCs, but the
number of active IPMCs. It might be helpful to make sure each project has
enough active IPMCs.
>From this point of view, the issue with many inactive IPMCs is that it
seems like a project has enough IPMCs so there is no urgent
Hi All,
+1 for #4
I think that we should focus on what is the underlying reason. I suggest
starting a new thread to point for such purpose. We need to address the
problem for both newcomers and long-standing members. For example, I
personally think that it is not fluid at some points how incubato
Hi,
> I think this thread misses the point of the original observation.
Several people has said the issue is that the IPMC is too big and you yourself
said how IPMC members join was an issue. This email was trying to address that.
Your response means I guess that you changed your mind?
> What
hei36>
>
>
> From: Kenneth Knowles
> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:49:29 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: A smaller IPMC
>
> +1 for #4 noop, at least until there's evidence of a problem.
>
> Kenn
&
rom: Kenneth Knowles
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:49:29 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: A smaller IPMC
+1 for #4 noop, at least until there's evidence of a problem.
Kenn
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:27 PM Woonsan Ko wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:33 PM Justin Mclean
>
+1 for #4 noop, at least until there's evidence of a problem.
Kenn
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:27 PM Woonsan Ko wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:33 PM Justin Mclean
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It’s been suggested that the IPMC is too large, what do other IPMC
> members think might be a way to a
Woonsan
I think that there may be some cross-talk between discussions. This latest
discussion was about the Ipmc ,not about the podling PMCs.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:27 PM Woonsan Ko wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:33 PM Justin Mclean
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It’s been suggested that
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:33 PM Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It’s been suggested that the IPMC is too large, what do other IPMC members
> think might be a way to address this?
>
> Please discuss and indicate +1 what you would think would help, you can vote
> for more than one.
>
> Some sugges
Hi,
> Of course, we could consider to send mail to the IPMC members, who haven't
> subscribed the private ml, and ask them to do so.
That has already done several months ago - a few decided to set down and a few
decided to sign up, but not much changed.
Thanks,
Justin
---
ri, Mar 8, 2019 07:39 AM
To: "general";
Subject: Re: A smaller IPMC
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:33 PM Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It??s been suggested that the IPMC is too large, what do other IPMC members
> think might be a way to address this?
Personally, I beli
I am not aware of the problem we are trying to fix. I don't even know if I
am a mentor not subscribed to private@.
Without knowing what we are trying to solve, it is hard to weigh in on
fixes.
So my ask is what is the issue?
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 19:25 Liang Chen Hi
>
> One more suggestion: How
Hi
One more suggestion: How about maintaining one table, and ask IPMC to freely
provide info by them-self which part they are mentoring or will be going to
mentor as volunteer.
For example myself : Helping new project (DataSketches) to prepare
incubator proposal. and participate in some vote for
+1 for #4
I think IPMC members not subscribed to the private list is only an issue for
mentors.
So at the risk of adding "yet another rule", I'd vote for #4 and look into
*requiring* mentors to subscribe to the incubator private list and their mentee
podlings' private lists.
Craig
> On Mar
Hi -
I lean heavily towards #4.
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It’s been suggested that the IPMC is too large, what do other IPMC members
> think might be a way to address this?
>
> Please discuss and indicate +1 what you would think would help, you can vote
I don't think that the number of inactive IPMC members is a factor in
anything. They are, by definition, inactive.
So I would vote for the no-op action (#4, I think).
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:39 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:33 PM Justin Mclean
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
>
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:33 PM Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It’s been suggested that the IPMC is too large, what do other IPMC members
> think might be a way to address this?
Personally, I believe that "IPMC is too large" argument is only applicable to
how quickly/easily consensus can be bui
21 matches
Mail list logo
