Back in 2013, I suggested asking the Champion to accept a very clear level of reporting responsibility: to write a sentence or two _every month_ or find someone else to do it. That's one person whom I wanted to ask to sign up, for the duration of an incubation, to pay enough attention to be able to report a basic heartbeat.
? On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 08:18 PM, jan i wrote: >> On 5 January 2015 at 20:06, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com >> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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. >> > > >> > > >> > > You mean popular within the pool of mentors (IPMC), the project can still >> > > be popular on several other scales. >> > >> > I’m not speaking of popularity of mentors; I regret that choice of words. >> > I am stating that active and healthy podlings seem to have no trouble >> > attracting active mentors. >> > >> > The converse seems to be true. Unhealthy podlings seem to attract mentors >> > who have signed up out of pity and subsequently go MIA. >> > >> I agree with the last part, I still have to see mentors volunteer for >> small >> active and healthy projects which might not be main road. Of course it >> depends on how active and healthy is defined, but as an example my little >> project Corinthia barely managed to get 2 mentors, while in the same time >> span we got 3 committers. >> >> > >> > Before anyone replies, I understand this is not a hard and fast rule but >> > an imperfect qualitative observation on my part. >> > >> > Anyway, active and responsible mentors will eventually get to all podlings. >> > >> > > I might lack experience, but why do more active mentors guarantee that >> > the >> > > podling will be a better TLP ? >> > >> > I’m not sure who’s making that assertion. >> > >> Well its because I cannot see why a podling need more than 1 active >> mentor >> at all times....having multiple is fine, to cover each other, but it >> should >> not take more than 1 mentor to learn a podling, what it needs to >> understand. The suggestion implicit says 2 mentors is the minimum needed >> for at podling to become a successful TLP. >> >> >> > >> > > We try to solve the problem of mentors not being active but adding more >> > > volume. I don't believe that is the right cure. >> > >> > We’re not adding volume. The volume is already there. We’re just making >> > the state of affairs more explicit and transparent and adding culpability >> > for MIA mentors. >> > >> Do we have a rule today that a podling needs at least 2 active mentors >> (if >> we have that, then we would not have a problem with sign offs, or a lot >> of >> dead podlings), at least I have not seen it....that is what I mean by >> adding volume. >> >> If just 1 mentor is active and sign off the reports, then I do not see >> the >> problem. >> >> >> >> > >> > > I do agree with bernard that it is the podling that should ask for >> > > help....but the IPMC should solve it., >> > >> > Yes, it should help solve problems but if there are no mentors available >> > there are no mentors available. >> > >> Then the IPMC should not have accepted the podling in the first place! >> >> It is simply not fair to make the life of a podling, depending on whether >> or not we have mentors available (REMARK after accepting the proposal) ! >> If >> the podling have a healthy community and are active, we cannot and should >> not close it down, just because we have a mentor problem. >> >> To me telling a podling it cannot grow its community nor make releases, >> is >> the same as closing it down. > > Jan, > > From an idealistic perspective, you are completely right. Apache should, > once a project has been accepted, provide the support needed. > > The reality is that, given the ASF's volunteer nature, that simply won't > always work. > > I'd much rather we be clear with projects right up front, saying > something like: > > "To join the Incubator, you need one or more mentors. To get to > graduation, you will need the support of those mentors. If mentors > become unavailable, you will need to seek replacements. Unless you have > already learned the ways of the ASF and are ready to graduate, you will > need to keep engaged with your mentors. If possible, engage in the wider > ASF, and develop connections with others who might be in a position to > assist with mentorship should one or all of your current mentors become > unable to fulfill the role. " > > This is, actually, what happens, and I'd much rather we just said it > like that :-) > > Upayavira > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
