On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
>
> I'm starting to wonder whether the real solution here should be along the
> lines
> of what a board would do to a TLP if its active PMC shrinks to less
> than 3 people.
That will inevitable lead to definition of "what is active" and the whole
"pity me/them for not having time" discussion that always arises when
Mentor responsibilities are brought up.
I have been Mentor on 8 podlings;
* I was inactive on 1 of those (can't recall the reason)
* On 2 projects one other mentor was active.
* Remaining 5 projects, none of the other mentors did anything
substantial, most nothing at all.
Am I unlucky, scare others to inactivity, or is this what I think; people
don't take the responsibility particularly seriously. "Oh cool project, I
would like to be associated with that."
Pat's suggestion is understandable, but not really viable.
I would like to make a counter-suggestion, and I am sure IPMC won't like
it, since it is filled with inactive, but sensitive, mentors;
* If the release is left dangling (not enough votes) for IPMC approval
beyond 72 hours,
1. The release may be placed in the dist snapshot areas, so active
community members have some stable milestone to work with,
2. An Incubator page (for instance the /projects page) is updated with
a "Attempted Release - failed not enough votes" with dates and votes
received. This will accumulate the data points for IF there is a real
problem in the Incubator and we can gather the stats if we have
irresponsible mentors or not. It also gives the podling a vent for the
frustration.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
