Now ... why not designate people beforehand to provide corrective action(s)? Perhaps for the reasons that Sam is often quiet as a PMC Chair, or Greg is very careful about which e-mail address he uses. Because they have found that it *does* make a difference. Once you designate someone in a role, it can be very hard for others to treat them as a peer. And I would be expecially sensitive to that in the Incubator, where we may have a good number of new people who may already view PMC members differently from themselves.
No - that simply states that we want people who take a formal role very seriously in those roles.
You could apply the argument above to say we don't want a chair of the PMC or a chair of the board. That's not so. It's simply that they are filled best (in the case of the ASF) when they are inhabitted by people who are very careful with the role, and who don't step in until it's absolutely necessary. (Definition of Berin's perfect mentor?)
And I *want* people to view the mentor as a very serious role. I personlly don't want people in the role who see it as a simple thing that is done easily, and "hey she'll be right"!.
But - in the interests of moving along - I'm happy to agree to disagree :>. I think the requirement for mentors is documented, and whilst it's not as far as I would like, I believe it is sufficient.
Cheers,
Berin--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
