Ted Husted wrote:
> On 4/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> But there is nothing stopping individuals from becoming a contributor.
>> I guess my point is that mentorship isn't a privilege, and shouldn't be
>> viewed as a feather in one's cap. We need active mentors, not those who
>> would sign up just for the title. ASF-Members-as-mentors has not really
>> solved this issue, but I believe it still constrains the issue.
>
> To be a member of the Incubator PMC, a volunteer would have either been
>
> * A podling Mentor,
> * An ASF Member who requested membership, or
> * A non-Member elected to the Incubator PMC by a formal vote.
>
> My point is that any individual who is serving on the Incubator PMC
> but is not a Member, would have already demonstrated to the Incubator
> PMC that he or she is responsible enough to be a Mentor.
I'm saying
1. Someone is nominated the iPMC as an active, involved contributor.
Nobody asked "are they ready to be a mentor?" The question was
"are they active in furthering the incubator project as a whole?"
You are trying to change the question and imbue their promotion
to the iPMC with additional expertise they may or may not have.
2. I don't want this onus on the iPMC. I want it where it belongs,
with the members. It's one thing to vet a new committer, and then
a new pmc member after they have been a committer for a while.
And I don't want to go through the gyrations twice per person.
3. This introduces added scrutiny by the iPMC to review the conduct
of the mentor, another bit of nonsense I don't want us to own
at that level of scrutiny. Mentoring the mentor? Yuck.
4. I don't want to see "I nominate Joe to the ASF membership. He's
a mentor on the WizBang project" to suddenly become some magic
bullet to ASF nomination. I'd probably nix that nomination on
it's face. It encourages members to vote without actually
examining the merit of Joe's nomination.
5. Members often agree to disagree. Your advise may vary. Cook to
an internal temperature of 160F. Etc etc. A non-member has -not-
earned the respect yet to dance that tango, and you put them into
the pot with other ASF member-mentors. Who loses? The non-member
voice, probably. Worse, the project - because I'm not saying the
voice was wrong - but they lack the history and deep-background
to go toe to toe.
Bottom line, what is the *motivation* to have non-ASF-member Mentorships?
If I want to learn what the ASF is, I want to learn it from the members.
If I want to learn the best technical solution for the project, I look
at my fellow contributors. So please give me some valid cases for this
exception, other than "but they are ready!" I don't care that they might
be ready - I'm asking for examples of motivation, and predictably positive
outcomes from non-member mentorship.
Mentorship isn't technical, it's entire purpose is to convey "this
is the ASF" to a podling. It's silly to suggest non-ASF members can
or should be that voice.
> If we could nominate someone as an ASF Member at any time, then our
> recourse could e to elect that person as a ASF Member, and then accept
> the podling proposal. But, the ASF Member events are few and far
> between. If we forget to nominate someone (and we often do), it could
> be a year before there's another opportunity (since we also forget to
> schedule the votes).
Now that's a separate issue. Of course, we have one coming up here in
a month or so. But since nobody makes noise, there's no impetus to hold
a new-members vote more than once a year. Please move this aspect of
the discussion to members@ where it belongs.
one more...
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Ted Husted wrote:
>>> In most cases, the underlying issue would be timing. We accept
>>> podlings and mentors year round. ASF Members we accept only
>>> once or twice a year.
>
>> I'd agree with you if I perceived Mentorship as a privilege.
>
> That seems irrelevant to Ted's point, which is that someone might be "ready",
> but there is a procedural gating factor of a twice (at most) annual election.
It's entirely relevant and I'm saying Ted's point is a red herring.
Which is the symptom and which is the cure? See above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
