Let's reset expectations then so that every mentor is expected to sign-off on reports. That way we have a better way of surveying whether or not a podling is getting it's share of active participation from mentors.
>________________________________ > From: Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> >To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>; general@incubator.apache.org >Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:41 PM >Subject: Re: February report review > > >Thanks Jukka, a fair exaltation of the projects I'm involved with. >Single sign off should not be a concern. There are a couple of projects where, >for example, I have participated in report composition but have not signed >off. Only one mentor is required to sign off. > > >Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. >On Feb 8, 2012 5:43 PM, "Joe Schaefer" <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Nice job Jukka. For me the biggest uptick from Jan was the mentor >>participation in the sign-offs, clearly people are taking more time >>reading these reports now. >> >> >>The single-signoff or non-signoff projects are an area of concern >>should a pattern emerge. Perhaps we need to take a closer look at >>mentor activity in those projects and adjust if need be. >> >>Anybody know what the holdup is for Amber regarding IP Clearance? >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> >>> To: general <general@incubator.apache.org> >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 12:37 PM >>> Subject: February report review >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The podling reports this month [1] seem pretty good in general. >>> >>> I spent some time unifying report formatting and fixing some minor >>> issues (like Stanbol needing an intro paragraph). I also pinged >>> NPanday and Zeta Components that have still not reported (both also >>> missed their previous report), asking them to report again next month >>> unless they already have something ready. HISE didn't report as the >>> project is just about to retire. >>> >>> Based on the submitted reports I'd divide the projects into the >>> following three rough categories: >>> >>> 1) Still getting started at the Incubator (7 podlings) >>> - Any23 >>> - Bloodhound >>> - Cordova >>> - DeltaSpike >>> - DeviceMap >>> - Flex >>> - Openmeetings >>> >>> 2) Not yet ready to graduate, categorized by most pressing issue (12 >>> podlings) >>> 2a) IP clearance: Amber >>> 2b) Release trouble: Clerezza, Stanbol >>> 2c) Low activity: Ambari, Nuvem, PhotArk, SIS, Wink >>> 2d) Low diversity: Airavata, Droids, VCL, Wookie >>> >>> 3) Ready to graduate (3 podlings) >>> - Jena >>> - Lucene.NET >>> - OpenNLP >>> >>> Also, I looked at the number of mentors signing off a report. Most had >>> at least two explicit sign-offs, which is pretty good. Here's the list >>> of projects with less than that: >>> >>> - no signoffs: Amber, OpenNLP >>> - one signoff: Any23, Ambari, Jena, Lucene.NET, Nuvem, Openmeetings, >>> PhotArk, Wink >>> >>> I'm not yet sure how useful (or even meaningful) summaries like this >>> are. If people find this summary useful or more importantly something >>> we can act on, then we could try doing it again for future reports. >>> >>> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2012 >>> >>> BR, >>> >>> Jukka Zitting >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > >
