On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > 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.
Perhaps this could be accomplished by tweaking the definition of champion? http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Champion http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Mentor - Sam Ruby >> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
