+1for PPMC
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Mar 19, 2012 9:32 PM, "Nóirín Pluincéid" wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> > And for Podlings? Do this in their own dev list, where mentors can be
> > counted on to raise any issues? Or
Am Mo, 19.03.2012, 22:31 schrieb Nóirín Pluincéid:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> And for Podlings? Do this in their own dev list, where mentors can be
>> counted on to raise any issues? Or send them all to the IPMC general
>> list?
>
> I think an ACK from the PPMC is m
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> And for Podlings? Do this in their own dev list, where mentors can be
> counted on to raise any issues? Or send them all to the IPMC general
> list?
I think an ACK from the PPMC is more meaningful in that case.
N
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I just want to shortly recap the results of our discussions from last year:
> We want individual PMCs
> to be more involved in the mentor selection process and want them to lazy ACK
> mentors for their
> projects. So a potential m
The recognition by PMC of a GSoC project mentor should help
eliminate a problem I witnessed last year.
+1
Steven J. Hathaway
XALAN
> Now that I understood that no action by or within the PMC is required,
> I'm perfectly fine with the new procedure.
>
> So a non-binding +1 from me.
>
> Cheers,
>
Now that I understood that no action by or within the PMC is required,
I'm perfectly fine with the new procedure.
So a non-binding +1 from me.
Cheers,
Tammo
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:35, Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> Do we have a concensus here? If so we will prepare a mail to pmc@ explaining
> the
Do we have a concensus here? If so we will prepare a mail to pmc@ explaining
the process.
Uli
On 19.03.2012 10:08, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 19 March 2012 08:42, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Nóirín Pluincéid wrote:
>>> ...Mentors should have the backing of the
On 19 March 2012 08:42, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Nóirín Pluincéid wrote:
>> ...Mentors should have the backing of the PMC responsible for the project
>> their student is working on - because we've promised that to Google, and
>> because we need to know that if
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Nóirín Pluincéid wrote:
> ...Mentors should have the backing of the PMC responsible for the project
> their student is working on - because we've promised that to Google, and
> because we need to know that if the mentor disappears, the PMC will step
> in
+1,
On Mar 18, 2012 7:48 PM, "Luciano Resende" wrote:
>
> If we step back, what's the main issue we are trying to solve here ?
Mentors should have the backing of the PMC responsible for the project
their student is working on - because we've promised that to Google, and
because we need to know that i
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Nóirín Pluincéid wrote:
> I'm not ok with that. I think it's important to vet mentors better
> than we have in the past--I know that it pushes some extra work onto
> the PMCs and mentors, but if we're going to keep asking for the number
> of projects we've had in t
I'm not ok with that. I think it's important to vet mentors better
than we have in the past--I know that it pushes some extra work onto
the PMCs and mentors, but if we're going to keep asking for the number
of projects we've had in the past, the admins can't do all the work.
And as we get bigger an
Sorry, I'm some what unclear as to the vetting procedure, it doesn't
seem to be documented anywhere. Also, aside from our subscription
being accepted to code-awards@, is the list of accepted mentors
documented anywhere?
Thanks,
Mehdi
On 18 March 2012 07:31, Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> I'm OK with tha
I'm OK with that, I'm just recapitulating what we discussed after last year's
incident. Assuming
lazy concensus. we'll invite pmc@a.o to begin applying as mentors in 72 hours,
no changes to the
mentor vetting procedure.
Uli
On 18.03.2012 04:59, Sagara Gunathunga wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Tammo van Lessen
> wrote:
>> Hi Ulrich,
>>
>> I applied as mentor for Apache ODE and I'm the PMC chair of ODE. Does
>> that mean I have to ACK (or not NACK) myself? Or do I need to let the
>> others PMC me
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Tammo van Lessen wrote:
> Hi Ulrich,
>
> I applied as mentor for Apache ODE and I'm the PMC chair of ODE. Does
> that mean I have to ACK (or not NACK) myself? Or do I need to let the
> others PMC members vote for me mentoring a project? Sounds a bit
> cumbersome to
Hi Ulrich,
I applied as mentor for Apache ODE and I'm the PMC chair of ODE. Does
that mean I have to ACK (or not NACK) myself? Or do I need to let the
others PMC members vote for me mentoring a project? Sounds a bit
cumbersome to me.
Cheers,
Tammo
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 22:50, Ulrich Stärk w
Folks,
I just want to shortly recap the results of our discussions from last year: We
want individual PMCs
to be more involved in the mentor selection process and want them to lazy ACK
mentors for their
projects. So a potential mentor will need to 1) request to be a mentor in
google melange and
18 matches
Mail list logo
