For me, I consider being a mentor as I do being a member of a PMC. Occasionally one simply lacks cycles to be actively involved, but one is involve enough to see that others *ARE* involved, and so I am "unconcerned" about my inactivity during those times.
My understanding is that this is OK and its one of the reasons why we *have* multiple mentors. "Shaming" inactive mentors would be akin to "shaming" PMC members who didn't post on the dev@ list this month, or who didn't vote on a release or etc... I am not, of course, referring to mentors who are truly MIA month in and month out. But, as someone said, if you remove those from the equation, the list of "active" mentors is pretty constant. So the question is "Is there a difference or problem between a podling with 10 mentors, of which 4 are 'active', as compared to a podling with 4 mentors, all of which are 'active'"?? > On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > >>> Sounds like reaching out to the inactive mentors is a great idea and I >>> think we have a great example here of how complicated it can be. >> >> Nope. I posted that link knowing that my name would be on it, and >> advocated that we should be having exactly this discussion. I should >> either become more active on this, or (and probably more likely) >> remove myself as a mentor for this podling. > > > And possibly by so doing become a great example to others of us who can't > admit to ourselves that we are over-extended. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
