You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2015/10/15 04:17:57 UTC
structural reform- division of labor
Elsewhere in the org several ideas have been floated around regardinggeneral reorganization and reform. Things like possibly creating a newcommittee to oversee inbound and outbound podlings, or perhaps having the IPMC form such a subcommittee.
I mention these notions not because I support them, but because othershere might want to pick up that ball and push some of that to conclusion.
However, one related suggestion I do support: creating subdivisions withinthe incubator by labor. I would prefer to call those working groups butthat's not a big deal.
It would be beneficial in several ways: teams of ingress IPMC memberscould have a focused discussion on their own list about how to makeimprovements in that labor area. Similarly for documentation, outbound transitioning, mentoring, tho as Martijn points out that might need additional subdividing by focus areas or timeline specialization.
Ted can fully flesh the details out as this was something he mentioned to me as one possible avenue of improvement.
RE: structural reform- division of labor
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1
-----Original Message-----
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacretaz@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 00:39
To: Incubator General <ge...@incubator.apache.org>; Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: structural reform- division of labor
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Joe Schaefer
<jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> ...Formally, that's all a working group needs to be- yet another mailing list....
I'm not in favor of more mailing lists, I think [tags] in subject
lines can pretty much do the same thing without splitting the
community (as per Stefano Mazzocchi's busy lists pattern [1]).
So maybe just define a set of such tags like [graduation], [proposal]
[release] etc. but stay here.
-Bertrand
[1] http://grep.codeconsult.ch/2011/12/06/stefanos-mazzocchis-busy-list-pattern/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: structural reform- division of labor
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Joe Schaefer
<jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> ...Formally, that's all a working group needs to be- yet another mailing list....
I'm not in favor of more mailing lists, I think [tags] in subject
lines can pretty much do the same thing without splitting the
community (as per Stefano Mazzocchi's busy lists pattern [1]).
So maybe just define a set of such tags like [graduation], [proposal]
[release] etc. but stay here.
-Bertrand
[1] http://grep.codeconsult.ch/2011/12/06/stefanos-mazzocchis-busy-list-pattern/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: structural reform- division of labor
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
That's certainly a reasonable approach, but it doesn't quite capture what I'm talking about when I mention the concept of having individual working groups to do more focused collaboration on specific areas of work activity. Where these conversations take place isn't really all that important, what is important is that we have them.
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Joe Schaefer
<jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> ...Formally, that's all a working group needs to be- yet another mailing list....
I'm not in favor of more mailing lists, I think [tags] in subject
lines can pretty much do the same thing without splitting the
community (as per Stefano Mazzocchi's busy lists pattern [1]).
So maybe just define a set of such tags like [graduation], [proposal]
[release] etc. but stay here.
-Bertrand
[1] http://grep.codeconsult.ch/2011/12/06/stefanos-mazzocchis-busy-list-pattern/
Re: structural reform- division of labor
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>.
The incubator is a very large committee with a lot of moving parts. To
pick an example off the top of my head, let's look at the mentoring
situation. What we generally do with new mentors is say hey so and so I
trust you will do a good job of watching over this podling for us. What we
don't have right now are any general agreements of what "doing a good job"
entails. Sure there are probably some docs about the subject, but
different people will interpret the relative merits of every bullet point
in different ways. The things we ask them to do, like sign off on reports
etc, are just ways of taking their pulse. What we need is some place where
they can talk to other mentors about what they're supposed to be doing,
what is actually important versus what isn't, etc etc. If issues pop up
they can shoot off an informal email to the mentoring working group before
having things escalated to incubator-private the way they do now. You
might say they could contact other, more senior mentors on the project but
then again it's a crap shoot about the type of response you receive.
There are other examples, like on boarding and off boarding, where more
focused collaboration would serve the org well. Docs are great, but they
don't replace the personal touch.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Joe Schaefer <
joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> That's certainly a reasonable approach, but it doesn't quite capture what
> I'm talking about when I mention the concept of having individual working
> groups to do more focused collaboration on specific areas of work
> activity. Where these conversations take place isn't really all that
> important, what is important is that we have them.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Joe Schaefer
> <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > ...Formally, that's all a working group needs to be- yet another mailing
> list....
>
> I'm not in favor of more mailing lists, I think [tags] in subject
> lines can pretty much do the same thing without splitting the
> community (as per Stefano Mazzocchi's busy lists pattern [1]).
>
> So maybe just define a set of such tags like [graduation], [proposal]
> [release] etc. but stay here.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1]
> http://grep.codeconsult.ch/2011/12/06/stefanos-mazzocchis-busy-list-pattern/
>
>
>
>
Re: structural reform- division of labor
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
This list is a pretty high volume list that really is intended for topics suitable for a general audience of incubator participants. Nevertheless it carries a lot of traffic better suited for more topic-specific specialization. Not everyone here is capable of participating in release voting, acceptance voting, graduation voting, mentoring, documentation, or any of the other of these specialized areas. So it does make some sense to shut some of this traffic elsewhere.
Formally, that's all a working group needs to be- yet another mailing list. Informally it could stimulate conversations between people working on similar subjects that don't want to burden this list with that sort of conversation.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
Elsewhere in the org several ideas have been floated around regardinggeneral reorganization and reform. Things like possibly creating a newcommittee to oversee inbound and outbound podlings, or perhaps having the IPMC form such a subcommittee.
I mention these notions not because I support them, but because othershere might want to pick up that ball and push some of that to conclusion.
However, one related suggestion I do support: creating subdivisions withinthe incubator by labor. I would prefer to call those working groups butthat's not a big deal.
It would be beneficial in several ways: teams of ingress IPMC memberscould have a focused discussion on their own list about how to makeimprovements in that labor area. Similarly for documentation, outbound transitioning, mentoring, tho as Martijn points out that might need additional subdividing by focus areas or timeline specialization.
Ted can fully flesh the details out as this was something he mentioned to me as one possible avenue of improvement.
Re: structural reform- division of labor
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
To be specific, what I have in mind is something like
proposals@incubatordocs@incubatormentoring@incubatorgraduation@incubatorreleases@incubator
We probably don't need to start off with more subdivisions than that.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:06 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
This list is a pretty high volume list that really is intended for topics suitable for a general audience of incubator participants. Nevertheless it carries a lot of traffic better suited for more topic-specific specialization. Not everyone here is capable of participating in release voting, acceptance voting, graduation voting, mentoring, documentation, or any of the other of these specialized areas. So it does make some sense to shut some of this traffic elsewhere.
Formally, that's all a working group needs to be- yet another mailing list. Informally it could stimulate conversations between people working on similar subjects that don't want to burden this list with that sort of conversation.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
Elsewhere in the org several ideas have been floated around regardinggeneral reorganization and reform. Things like possibly creating a newcommittee to oversee inbound and outbound podlings, or perhaps having the IPMC form such a subcommittee.
I mention these notions not because I support them, but because othershere might want to pick up that ball and push some of that to conclusion.
However, one related suggestion I do support: creating subdivisions withinthe incubator by labor. I would prefer to call those working groups butthat's not a big deal.
It would be beneficial in several ways: teams of ingress IPMC memberscould have a focused discussion on their own list about how to makeimprovements in that labor area. Similarly for documentation, outbound transitioning, mentoring, tho as Martijn points out that might need additional subdividing by focus areas or timeline specialization.
Ted can fully flesh the details out as this was something he mentioned to me as one possible avenue of improvement.
structural reform- division of labor
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Elsewhere in the org several ideas have been floated around regardinggeneral reorganization and reform. Things like possibly creating a newcommittee to oversee inbound and outbound podlings, or perhaps having the IPMC form such a subcommittee.
I mention these notions not because I support them, but because othershere might want to pick up that ball and push some of that to conclusion.
However, one related suggestion I do support: creating subdivisions withinthe incubator by labor. I would prefer to call those working groups butthat's not a big deal.
It would be beneficial in several ways: teams of ingress IPMC memberscould have a focused discussion on their own list about how to makeimprovements in that labor area. Similarly for documentation, outbound transitioning, mentoring, tho as Martijn points out that might need additional subdividing by focus areas or timeline specialization.
Ted can fully flesh the details out as this was something he mentioned to me as one possible avenue of improvement.