Agreed here as well. My point is that with 1 mentor, everyone knows where the buck stops. With >1 nobody knows. A flat hierarchy for mentors does not seem workable or, at least, optimal.
If we wish to address this, and not "force" mentors to leave, we could simply add the idea of "lead mentor" and have the PPMC vote on which mentor they want to be the lead mentor (pseudo PPMC chair); the remaining mentors would remain as co-mentors but the intent is that the lead mentor would be the primary person responsible. > On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: > > And sometimes, s/spare/sparring partner/ :) > > I find it extremely useful to have a fellow mentor to bounce ideas and > perceptions off on. Sometimes having a really engaged mentor and a more > loosely engaged works well, as you get both a view from the inside and > the outside. > > With regards, > Daniel. > On 10/14/2015 03:10 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
