On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > >> The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part >> that would require us to do something with poddlings put >> on hold. Unless we come up with clear exit criteria for >> this new state -- I don't think we're solving any real problems >> here. > > There’s no silver bullet here, if a podling cannot whip up a mentor it’s > because: > the podling is not popular and should probably be retired anyway, being put on > hold will provide impetus for the podling to seek out a new venue > there are not enough mentors > There is no way to magically solve the latter.
I've always been +1 on adding a feedback question to the poddling reporting template. I'll do it shortly now that there's more consensus around the idea compared to when I first proposed it. I'm strongly -1 on adding yet another state to the Incubator state transition diagram. In my book shifting responsibility to a poddling achieves no useful purposes and is going to clutter Incubator with half-alive poddlings. The way I see this: once a poddling gets accepted it becomes an IPMC responsibility to make sure we empower it to be successful. It is true that circumstances change, but at that point it still needs to be an IPMC responsibility to either ponny up required mentorship resources or make a tough call of retirement. No need to chop the proverbial tail bit-by-bit. I'll rest this thread for some time now... Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
