If it can work, that is very good. With intermittent availability, I have often seen the need for a spare.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > Agreed. My only comment would be that I still think that the > optimal number of mentors is 1. > > > On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:45 AM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > It's not activity on the dev list, or even report signoffs, that > > matter most. Podlings, especially new podlings, have lots and lots of > > questions, especially about infrastructure. Without at least two > > responsive mentors to field those questions you feel like banging your > > head on the wall. And you start wondering why you left the comfort and > > convenience of github and whether Apache itself is fascinated by its > > own brand. > > > > Before you ask, you won't get podlings to send their questions to > > another list, because we're all too proud to ask questions which in > > retrospect always turn out to be dumb questions. > > > > It's not possible to measure that kind of mentor activity, so I think > > people are inclined to measure the "public" forms of activity as proxy > > indicators. > > > > Julian > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > >
