Sorry not caught up with the full thread so I will not critique the overall 
proposal until I have. However, I have a concern with the abolition of the 
champion role. I don't care about the title of the role, but the champion is 
much more than "merely a mentor who is publicly stating that s/he will be more 
active in the podlings incubation". In fact, originally the champion role was 
merely the initial conduit into the Incubator. It was the friendly face that 
brought the team up to speed and ensured everyone was aligned before the 
project started talking publicly about its intentions to be an ASF project. In 
my experience steps 1-3 result in at least 50% of the projects I talk to never 
coming to the ASF. That, IMHO, is the result we want. If the ASF is not right 
for a project then we should catch it before they become an ASF project and 
tart to try to push the boundaries of The Apache Way.

To be honest I didn't know that the Champions role had changed and I'm not sure 
that it was ever documented as this. I see that the IPMC docs now define the 
role to be much more like that of a mentor. This is, IMHO, a mistake that I 
didn't see happening at the time - sorry for the late arrival on this.

Here’s a slightly modified version of what I recently wrote for a PPMC about 
how *I* see *my* role as a champion, you'll see it is *much* more than being a 
mentor:

1)      Have at least one call with all interested parties to explain what 
incubation is, what the proposal process will be (including things like 
individuals not companies and no PR), what the incubation process will be 
(including community building and no leader figures), what the Apache Way is, 
what the participants can expect from the foundation (there are always many 
questions and it is thus often necessary to have one-on-ones with different 
people in technical, business and legal roles in different orgs to address 
these questions)

2)      By email work through the proposal template explaining why each section 
is present and pointing to appropriate ASF resources for further information. 
This might trigger many more questions and sometimes a second call.

3)      Have the project team draw up the initial proposal, review, update, 
repeat (this often highlights a few remaining issues which might prompt another 
call)

4)      While the above is happening recruit mentors that are trusted to do a 
good job and have a personal interest in the project succeeding.

5)      Once the proposal is ready post it to the Wiki and invite discussion on 
the general mailing list, where all participants have already been instructed 
to subscribe. The proposal team should respond to any technical or community 
questions (they should understand enough about the Apache Way by now to be able 
to address community issues). The champion should address any process/legal 
questions because the IPMC (and to be fair the ASF generally) can be very 
difficult to deal with on such points. The champions experience and 
understanding of the ASF should help them cut through the noise in a way 
newcomers wouldn't be able to do. Allow a minimum of 5 days for discussion but 
try not to close the discussion period until after the thread has been quiet 
for at least three days. There may be some changes to the proposal during this 
discussion phase.

6)      Call the vote and let run for a minimum of 3 days (possibly more for 
weekends).

This whole process takes at least one month for steps 1-3 (sometimes much 
longer for complex cases). At the end of these steps everyone who feels they 
have an interest in the project moving forwards has had the opportunity to ask 
their questions and have them answered. Critical to this is that the champion 
has answered them personally, before linking to the ASF resources that address 
things. We have to remember that for many of these folks this is their first 
experience of an open source project we must explain things to them in language 
*they* understand. Not language that is comfortable for ASF Members. We can 
make no assumptions in those explanations. Remember that our documentation is 
difficult to read, sometimes conflicting and spread across the foundation. It 
is unreasonable to expect people new to the ASF to find their way (or to "get 
ahead of it" as one person recently described it to me).

On a personal note I'd add that if I'm expected to also be a mentor for any 
project that I champion then the result will be that I won't champion as many 
new projects. While I can find the time to champion projects I can't always 
find the time to mentor projects effectively (personally, I usually budget 5 
days over one month for the above champion role and 1 day per week for the 
first month and then 1/2 day per week for two months, then 1/4 day per week 
until graduation, planning on a 6-9 month incubation period). ASIDE: one of the 
things that moved the need on the quality of GSoC mentoring was to state our 
expectations on the amount of time mentors would need to put in - we should do 
that in the Incubator too.

While I have no objection to removing the champions title, I would like to see 
us setting expectations about what is necessary even before a proposal hits the 
ASF. People can still perform this function without having the title of 
"Champion". Unfortunately, I get the impression that many podlings do not get 
this pre-proposal introduction into how the ASF works and are surprised once 
they are a podling - there should be no surprises.

Ross

Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan D.Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 9:43 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: proposal: mentor re-boot

I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold mentors 
accountable but also give them a fair bit of autonomous authority during 
releases.

https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal 
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal>

What we would gain is transparency and simplicity.  There would be no false 
expectations.  Podlings would know where they stand.  Work would be equitably 
distributed.

No more layers.  No more additional roles and confusing/diluted 
responsibilities.  No more shuffling.  


Regards,
Alan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Reply via email to