I'd suggest a different approach, the motivation for this suggestion is that I don't believe having inactive mentors is a problem if there is an active one available. Everyone gets busy occasionally, should we really be kicking them off a podling when they have already expressed interest? At next months report they might be the one who is active. They may have been active in the two months between reports. Etc.
In my opinion there is only a problem if nobody is looking or if the podling community feels they are not getting the support they need. I therefore suggest reaching out to the podling rather than passing judgement on the mentors. Ross On 23 March 2013 10:23, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I know at least one podling where 75% of the mentors is awol. We don't > have an oversight on the "awol"-state, just the shepherds do know for > the projects they shepherd. > > We have status reports, which should be signed by all mentors. I > believe reading, verifying and signing a podling report is not so much > work and it is the least a mentor should do. > > My proposal: > > We should contact all Mentors who have not signed a report 2 times in > a row if they are still committed to their role. If we get no response > within a week, we should remove them as a mentor from podlings.xml (or > give them an inactive flag). With this information clutch can report > projects which do not have sufficient mentors. > > Thoughts? > > Christian > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > https://www.timeandbill.de > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
