Hello, I concur with this. Once we got one of our mentors engaged -- Daniel Gruno -- its been smooth sailing. You know how we got him engaged? HipChat. He set us up an account and now we can "@Humbedooh" with questions and get responses. No more "Hello?! Please answer our emails..."
So yes, optimal number of mentors -- 1. And if that mentor doesn't know the answer to the question, he can route you appropriately. Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Oct 14, 2015, at 6:53 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 >
