I'm not ok with that. I think it's important to vet mentors better than we have in the past--I know that it pushes some extra work onto the PMCs and mentors, but if we're going to keep asking for the number of projects we've had in the past, the admins can't do all the work. And as we get bigger and GSoC gets more and more popular, it's important to be reasonably thorough about this.
Noirin On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Ulrich Stärk <u...@spielviel.de> wrote: > I'm OK with that, I'm just recapitulating what we discussed after last year's > incident. Assuming > lazy concensus. we'll invite pmc@a.o to begin applying as mentors in 72 > hours, no changes to the > mentor vetting procedure. > > Uli > > On 18.03.2012 04:59, Sagara Gunathunga wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Tammo van Lessen <tvanles...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Ulrich, >>>> >>>> I applied as mentor for Apache ODE and I'm the PMC chair of ODE. Does >>>> that mean I have to ACK (or not NACK) myself? Or do I need to let the >>>> others PMC members vote for me mentoring a project? Sounds a bit >>>> cumbersome to me. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Tammo >>>> >>> I agree with Tammo. The old process has been working ok for several >>> years (with the exception of one incident last year). I'd rather >>> continue with the process (and maybe avoid any temporary account >>> creation at apache)., and deal with issues when we find them. Anyway, >>> just my 0.2c... >> +1 In my POV better to continue with old process and address any >> issues once they occur. >> >> Thanks ! >>> >>> -- >>> Luciano Resende >>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende >>> http://twitter.com/lresende1975 >>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >> >>
