Just to provide, here's the proposed patch I have for the website
Index: content/guides/ppmc.xml
===================================================================
--- content/guides/ppmc.xml (revision 1780221)
+++ content/guides/ppmc.xml (working copy)
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
<section id="PPMC+Mail+List">
<title>Private Mail List</title>
- <p>A private mail list, named <em>project</em>-private, lets
+ <p>A private mail list, named private@<em>project</em>, lets
the PPMC discuss confidential topics.
<em>Most communication should be on the Podling's dev list!</em>
The private list is used only for confidential discussions that
@@ -107,8 +107,12 @@
<li> Project name and one-line summary.</li>
<li> Date of entry to the Incubator.</li>
<li> Top three items to resolve before graduation.</li>
+ <li> Internal issues that may require IPMC or Board input</li>
+ <li> How has the community changed</li>
+ <li> How has the project changed</li>
+ <li> How mature the project feels they are</li>
</ul>
-
+
<p>Here are the points to be addressed:</p>
<ul>
<li>Is there anything that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:41 AM John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:40 AM P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> I'm fine with 1 and 3, but 2 gives me pause. I like the idea of the
> maturity model, but is it yet another burden on mentors?
>
>
> I would hope not. How often are mentors writing the reports for podlings,
> vs pushing that the podlings write the reports themselves? I guess its a
> factor of how embedded within the podling that mentor is. And granted, I'm
> not pushing that its the ComDev Apache Project Maturity Model [1] being
> followed
>
> [1]:
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>
>
>
> If we are trying to increase mentor engagement, we probably don't want to
> set too high a bar.
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:15 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > The Incubator PMC has received feedback from the board that changes may
> > need to be made to the structure of our report. Specifically, there is
> > confusion from the board members over how podlings get classified. There
> > is also a request to increase and improve mentor feedback on podling
> > reports. Based on this input, I would like to propose the following
> > changes to our report format. I would like to try to implement this for
> > the March report, if not before then.
> >
> > 1. Eliminate the podling summary section of the report. It shouldn't be
> on
> > the report manager to classify each podling. We have begun leveraging a
> > maturity model for podlings, while its not required to fulfill it serves
> as
> > an equivalent to this section. The list of podlings who failed to report
> > shall remain.
> >
> > 2. Add a "Podling Maturity Assessment" to the individual podling reports.
> > This would give a clear opportunity for each podling to describe how they
> > are doing, perhaps compared to the maturity model or our classic
> categories.
> >
> > 3. Change the mentor sign off section to include a per-mentor comment.
> > E.g. instead of the current:
> >
> > [ ](podling) mentor1
> > [ ](podling) mentor2
> > [ ](podling) mentor3
> >
> > It would be:
> >
> > [ ](podling) mentor1
> > Comments:
> > [ ](podling) mentor2
> > Comments:
> > [ ](podling) mentor3
> > Comments:
> >
> > And rename Shepherd/Mentor notes: to just "Shepherd notes:"
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > John
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
