Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Alex Karasulu wrote: > >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>> ASF members -do- have additional insights from private forums, and the >>> ability to oversee most of the private forums at the ASF. This means >>> they can (and do) go back to the archives to look back at how a specific >>> issue (people issues, company issues, legal issues) were addressed in >>> similar cases to help guide a podling away from trouble. >> I've done this several times and it proved to be a valuable asset to me >> as a mentor. > > But not an invaluable one that you could not perform the task without. But > this is why we had previously compromised on ensuring that at least one > Mentor is an ASF Member.
1/3 is not sufficient, given the absenteeism that is evident. This goes to my earlier comment about mentoring-the-mentor, if the 1/3 becomes 0/2 for a time (which is happening too frequently), what then? >>> They also have made their mark on the Foundation (which is why they are >>> members). That gives me a bit of reassurance that our mentors have less >>> to prove, and can help guide the project from 10,000 feet rather than in >>> the trenches, where egos can get in the way. > >> I was opposed to your line of thought until I read this paragraph. This is >> a very important point I did not consider before. > > And very disrespectful to those who have admirably performed the Mentor role > without having something to prove. Becoming a Member does not grant some > magic insight. It is often the other way around: those who demonstrate it > become Members. First, no disrespect intended. I've repeatedly pointed out this is a forward looking assessment of the policy, and not ment to rewrite history, so don't even waste bandwidth framing it as such. Second, becoming a member *acknowledges* insight, which I want the incubator out of the business of determining, and put that back on the members where it belonged. Where it isn't meeting our expectations (1/yr is too infrequent) take that discussion and solutions to members@ discussion. Lastly, I'm curious 1. how many (often is a gross overstatement) and 2. would this have been true with or without their mentoring a project (my guess is it was not a deciding factor in their nomination or election, but feel free to correct me). >> I think I would agree with you now that mentors should be ASF members >> although IPMC members need not be ASF members. > > Oh? So people wo are not qualified to be a Mentor, should still be > permitted to make binding decisions regarding the Incubator and all its > projects? Cast a binding vote in the project? Yes, of course. Mentorship is a heavier hammer than that, when necessary. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
