This is what happens when I write email like this and then go for two
weeks off of work. Catching up ...
On 12/19/2014 01:10 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
First of all,*my* expectation is that multiple mentors on the project
are more of redundancy or HA consideration. IOW, my expectation that
a project needs to have at least one active mentor at all times, but
it doesn't have to be the same person. Thus, I expect at least a signle
sign-off on the report and I don't mind if it ends up being a single one
too much.
You make a good point. I have been critical, of late, of projects that
have N mentors, and only 1 or 2 mentors sign off on a report. However, I
think you may have changed my perspective here, and I appreciate your
insight.
Second biggest expectation that I have is that mentors are extension
of the IPMC, not part of the poddling. They are akin to professors or
faculty members -- they are not part of the student body. As such
we, as IPMC are accountable to make sure that mentors perform
their duties. My expectation is that it is as unfair to ask poddling to
actively pursue mentors who are missing in action as it would
be unfair to ask students to hire detectives to hunt down professors
who don't show up for class. What is fair, is to provide poddlings
with a semi-format feedback channel for IPMC to monitor things
like mentors MIA.
Agreed.
Presumably, projects with no signoff are sent back to report again, with
a scolding note to the MIA mentors. As mentioned elsewhere, we don't
want to punish the podling for underperforming mentors.
--
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
