On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > If you would like to characterize shepherds as cross-cutting > > mentors-at-large, I wouldn't disagree. > > It's costly to produce such cross-cutting commentary. Because the product > ends up in the public report, it's risky to be candid -- recall the > Drill shepherd review that raised objections: <http://s.apache.org/ed>. > Shepherds can diminish the risk either by spending more time gathering > information, raising the cost, or by being more circumspect, diminishing > the > review's usefulness. Both choices are suboptimal. > Hmm... you link to my own response there. This shepherd report was actually one of the things that I found really helpful in mentoring (and contributing to) on the Drill incubation. I really don't have a problem with a report like that going out as long as somebody can answer it. I answered it. Dave paid attention. The group gained more knowledge about which aspects of a release are important to Apache. It was a very good thing, all in all. > In any case, the Incubator struggles to get consistent shepherd > participation. > While the fact that Incubator shepherds are less accountable than Board > members might keep participation under 100% any given month, my guess is > that > the main reason the number is under 50% and trending downward is > cost/benefit > ratio -- shepherds are making a rational choice to occupy themselves with > tasks they perceive as less arduous and/or more rewarding. > My first reaction is that we need to make shepherding have higher rewards. Maybe we make a rule that one isn't supposed to mention mentor status publicly, but can put shepherd work on your resume. :-) / 2 > > Maybe the time will come to revisit this issue if shepherd participation > flatlines, though that's not a very satisfying outcome... > Seems important enough to think about now.
