On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of > a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let > me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put > in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually > making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? > The chair? A super-committee? Nobody?
Last time I looked, the board charge the IPMC with this duty, not Mentors > While I certainly don't expect you as a mentor to "fix all that > is broken in the Incubator" single-handedly, I do expect you > to care enough to try and "fix all that is broken" in your podling. > It shouldn't take a board member's opinion for you to critically > review the reports of your podling and provide them with your own > feedback on how they are doing. That IMO is what you signed up > to do as mentor. I have no legal training. I'm not CEO of Oracle. I don't have the US$100B that would be required to buy Oracle. I now have limited computer access time. I am now incapable of driving public campaigns to influence corporate behaviour. I admit that there are some things that I can fix. The JCP is just one of them. > Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation > effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no > harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? > I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising > zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. Kato is stalled by external events over which the contributors and Mentors have no control. Mark and freeze would at least inform anyone who wants to terminate the podling to do so. Robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
