Hi - We could better spend our energy looking at podlings with Mentor problems and deciding which of three possible states fits the podling.
- "Failed" - no community is trully involved and there is nothing an active mentor could do. Let's just admit it and retire the podling. - "Needs Help" - a mentor would really help. They need it and want it. We try to find one. - "Going Fine" - could be a TLP. We help them graduate. I think the IPMC is doing almost all of the above better. Everything except for "Failed". I think that now we are blaming the mentor. Let's get over it. Not every podling will work. Thanks. Regards, Dave On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) >> <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> I'm not seeing how this proposal fixes the problem either. However, I do >> like that this proposal doesn't move responsibility and I like that it adds >> some teeth to the IPMC (e.g. removal of inactive mentors and pausing of >> podlings with insufficient mentors - though I still dispute ticking a box is >> hardly an indication of an active mentor) > > The thinking is that a mentor is at least honest; a reasonable assumption. > If they claim to have reviewed a release or board report then they can be > trusted to have done so to the best of their abilities. > > The two mentor minimum rule addresses the possible unevenness in ernest > mentors’ abilities. > > There is no silver bullet but this proposal covers a lot of the perennial > problems that the Incubator seems run into without changing responsibilities; > a nice incremental step. It also simplifies the roles that podlings need to > grok. Finally, it adds more impetus for PPMCs to take ownership in their > incubation. > > > Regards, > Alan > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
