Given some other arguments going on around here, I think that I am shortly going to have to start suppressing my own opinions and focus on neutral facilitation. However, I'm going to have a little fling on this topic, first.
I think that it is a mistake to emphasize the idea that roles convey honor and distinction and that, on the other hand, removal of roles conveys dishonor and disrespect. Obviously, there are disrespectful ways to handle anything, but that is not, in my view, a reason to never remove anyone from any list. I think that listing a person in a role should mean, first and foremost, that the person is, in fact, performing the role. I submit to you all that we list specific individuals as mentors for a reason. Otherwise, we'd just view it as the collective job of the IPMC to 'mentor' all of the podlings. Having the mentor listing reflect the realistic time-commitment of the people on it serves several good purposes, in my opinion. (1) it makes it clear to everyone when a project needs more mentor help. (2) it makes it clear to people inside and outside the podling where to go in case of need. (3) It gives credit where credit is due to people who devote real time and effort. We all know that, as volunteers, our effort levels will wax and wane. So pushing people when they are inactive for a month is probably counterproductive. On the other hand, I'll note that we seem to be succeeding in reducing the average length of incubation, so once someone has left the scene for a few months, they are at risk of irrelevance. I would offer a compromise process. If someone does not even sign off the report for two or three months running, send an email to that person, copying general@, asking, politely, if they wish to remain a mentor. In spite of my remarks above, if someone prefers to remain on the list in spite of their lack of time to do much of anything, I don't mind leaving them there. It is my belief that, 99% of the time, an email reminder will either result in activity or an agreement to be removed from the list, so I see no reason to have an agonizing email thread about the very unlikely case in which it might be appropriate to remove someone against his or her wishes. In any case, the most important thing to do with the mentor activity evidence is to discover podlings that need more assistance and try to find it. In this respect I do agree with Ross, even though the above disagrees with him other respects.
