Ross, I did another big round of edits based on your responses to my questions.
--benson On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 2009/12/8 Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>: >> I just submitted my first set of edits here. I adopted a fairly >> high-handed attitude of rewriting to improve clarity -- according to >> my ideas of clarity. If you all find it to be a train wreck just roll >> it back and tell me what you don't like, and I'll try again. > > Thank you. "High handed" is good at this stage. I'll review your changes soon. > >> I did have some questions that came up where I'm not sure what was >> intended, either in document structure or in program(me) structure. >> >> Question 0: Program or Programme? I made it consistently Programme, >> though I wonder about using the British form in this one place in the >> entire ASF. > > I'm British, it would be nice to have something that's spelled right ;-) > > (honestly I don't have an opinion on this one). > >> Question 1: "How does the Mentor Programme work?" is an 'h1' with only >> a single 'h2' under it. Also, much of the content above it is, in >> fact, a quick summary of how the program works, and the 'Draft: the >> ASF Mentoring Programme' below it is the detailed description. Should >> this h1 be eliminated and the content below it all be promoted? > > +1 > >> Question 2: I am confused about the intended bootstrapping process. A >> would-be contributor shows up. To get started, that person needs to >> design a proposed project. That design process requires a mentor >> interaction. If the person already has a particular ASF project in >> mind, he or she could ask one of the identified mentors from that >> project for assistance. If the person does not have a particular ASF >> project in mind, then what? > > We will help them find their way? In reality we'd work with them to > find a suitable project to work on and hand hold them in their first > steps into that community. I see it as arranging to meet a shy friend > at the door to the party so they don't have to go in alone. > >> It seemed to me that there has to be some initial engagement between >> some generic mentor from the programme to help the new person navigate >> to the point of making contact with a specific project community. If >> that's the intention, I can write it to state that more clearly. > > I think tat's what I have in mind, so clarity there would be good. > >> Question 3: I don't understand the intention of "The mentee is >> expected to document guidance provided by the mentee within the >> appropriate documentation." What documentation would that be? > > Not sure (I'm reading out of context), but I think this is saying the > mentee has to help us write documentation for those who come later. > That is they help us write the mentor/mentee docs. > >> Question 4: Not all projects like incremental submissions. Some prefer >> proposed changes to mature for in a patch until complete. (e.g. >> Lucene). > > OK, we need to accommodate that then. > >> Question 5: The word 'project' is a big ambiguity problem. The entire >> ASF is organized as projects. So it is very hard to write this up to >> as to keep straight mentee projects and ASF projects without a lot of >> verbiage. If someone had another idea for what to call the mentee >> activities (activity? task? quest?) it would help. > > Yes, this has come up in GSoC and in conversation with a prospective > mentee over on the Wookie list. Activity and task is probably too fine > grained. Quest kind of works because it's a well known training > technique in the academic sector, is it so well known outside of that > sector? I'm afraid I have no other suggestions. > >> Question 6: Should the formal education material be on it's own page? >> Long confluence pages are hard to work with. > > +1, formal education part does not apply to all mentees. > > Ross > > > -- > Ross Gardler > > OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research > http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk >
