I firmly believe our priority in mentoring podlings is to instill self-governance as early as is feasible, and the proven way to accomplish that task is to identify suitable members of the podling and elect them to the IPMC so they are fully empowered to do it. Every other approach is suboptimal.
Sent from my iPhone On May 11, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > > On May 11, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING >> these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. >> We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent >> volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do >> what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order >> to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop >> fighting. > > > Yes, shuttling the kids off the the grandparents is not going to solve > anything. If individuals on the board have the bandwidth to help they should > come over here. There's nothing specific about the auspices of the board that > would improve the situation. > > I personally think that we have "almost" enough people to mentor. I think > that the burnout comes from our constant churning of policy and lack of > tooling to make mundane tasks easier. > > For example, maybe > better reminders for reports > automatic nudging of mentors who have not signed reports > dead pilot buttons to detect inactive mentors (Is it called a dead pilot > button) > maybe a standard to podling releases to make vetting easier - i.e. apply > tooling > changes/additions to vetting procedures taking place outside of release > votes. (ok not a tooling issue) > > > Regards, > Alan > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
