The simple change that you seem to be suggesting is rather than having a space where mentors can add their names, add their names to the report, and expect them to sign +1 by it.
This seems quite reasonable, making it a little more obvious that mentors at *supposed* to sign reports. It makes it easier for the incubator PMC to reach sensible conclusions too, which is also useful. If all a mentor is required to do at minimum is sign a report once every three months, that isn't too onerous. Having said that, I personally would like to see some kind of separation between mentors and the incubator PMC. I think th PMC should be a smaller, more active group who take a more active interest in the incubator as it is, and perhaps are voted in by proper meritocracy rules, and mentors are more interested in justd their project. Not sure how to structure this in tems of voting rights though. Upayavira On Mon, Nov 5, 2012, at 03:20 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I want to thank all of you for the vote(s) of confidence in recommending me > > as the IPMC chair. While it's always possible that the Board will decline > > the suggestion, it doesn't seem too terribly presumptuous to start looking > > ahead. > > > > My goal is to continue along the path blazed by Jukka, and then, like him, > > hand over. So, set your egg-timers for a bit more than a year, and think, > > please, about stepping up. > > > > I think that the shepherd system has worked well. At the same time, I think > > that it was invented to compensate for a problem, and that we could make > > additional progress toward resolving that problem. > > > > Why do we have shepherds? Because we have had mentors who have found it > > impractical to exercise detailed supervision on the podlings. Our job as an > > entire PMC is to supervise the podlings. It seems logical to me that the > > mentors of each podling would provide that supervision. Of course, things > > happen. Shepherds have been helping to detect holes and compensate for > > those things. > > > > With this idea in mind, for December, I do not want to eliminate shepherds. > > But I want to float a proposal that might, over time, help us stop needing > > them. > > > > At the bottom of the template for each podling's report, I'd like to have a > > space for each of the mentors, every month, to reaffirm his or her > > involvement in the podling. Thus, instead of (at most) one mentor signing > > off on the report, itself, we'd get a reading on how many mentors are in > > the game. If the number were less than 3 -- and -- especially, if it were > > less than one, we'd be alerted and could make it a priority to find > > replacements. > > > > What do you think? > > +1 on the general idea. > > Personally, I believe that anything that simplifies the structure of > the incubation > process is a good thing. > > On that same note -- my current understanding is that the mentor > assignment is > pretty permanent for the duration of the incubation -- if that's > indeed the case, > perhaps having a more fluid process of mentor checking out and stepping > up > to help a project would also help us have a more positive experience for > the > poddlings. > > IOW, for any other TLP there's a presumption that a single PMC (or > committer) > can have a certain amount of down time when, for whatever reason, they > may > completely go dark as far project involvement is concerned. I'm not sure > there's > such an option for a mentor. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
