On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:17 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> Just to clarify.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:54 AM Justin Erenkrantz
> wrote:
>
> > I will just note that I disagree with adding bureaucracy like this.
> > We already require podlings to submit reports as frequently as
> >
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> I look to the ipmc chair to say what we MUST or MUST NOT do. I've learned
> my lesson.
Makes two of us. Still waiting on actionable guidance.
Thanks,
Roman.
-
To unsubscribe,
Hi Justin,
Just to clarify.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:54 AM Justin Erenkrantz
wrote:
> I will just note that I disagree with adding bureaucracy like this.
> We already require podlings to submit reports as frequently as
> monthly. (Geode somehow had to report monthly for no discernible
> reaso
On Nov 4, 2015 12:54 AM, "Justin Erenkrantz" wrote:
>
> I will just note that I disagree with adding bureaucracy like this.
It's not bureaucracy. It's suggesting a tool by which a mentor might
measure a podling's progress. It answers the question "how can I tell if
they're ready." It also gives a
I will just note that I disagree with adding bureaucracy like this.
We already require podlings to submit reports as frequently as
monthly. (Geode somehow had to report monthly for no discernible
reason.)
This further adds to the burden on being a mentor - probably to
something like being a teach
>
> But, I've got to wonder: as long as it is just a suggestion what's to
compel
> a mentor to actually spend quite a bit of time on doing that?
>
>
A mentor's desire to do their job thoroughly and serve the project and the
Foundation. This is one tool to assist with reaching that end. Use it, or
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> > As a means of refocusing the mentors' efforts, and keeping them engaged,
> I'd
> > like to encourage each mentor (or group of mentors) to consider writing a
> > running report (ie, evolving, updated every quarter) based on
> >
> https:/
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Fellow mentors,
>
> There was a conversation at ApacheCon about the Incubator. I'll leave it to
> the other participants to champion the particular parts that they are
> passionate about, but I was particularly concerned with mentor
> disengagem
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Martijn Dashorst
> wrote:
>> ...we should
>> strive to make incubation take not longer than a year or so. Or when
>> incubation takes longer, have a plan to switch mentors, perhaps a new
>> mentor migh
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote:
> ...Once we got one of our mentors engaged -- Daniel Gruno -- its been smooth
> sailing. You
> know how we got him engaged? HipChat. He set us up an account and now we
> can "@Humbedooh" with questions and get responses
That works for
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> ...we should
> strive to make incubation take not longer than a year or so. Or when
> incubation takes longer, have a plan to switch mentors, perhaps a new
> mentor might bring a new graduation spirit into the project...
I like the idea
The biggest issue with mentor disengagement IMO is that when
incubation starts to take longer than 9 months it is hard to maintain
focus and engagement if you are not a user/member of the incubating
community (and its code).
So while we can start measuring AWOL mentors and try to fix that by
addin
Behalf Of Sam Ruby
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:26 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
My point is that with 1 mentor, ever
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:10AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> If it can work, that is very good. With intermittent availability, I have
> often seen the need for a spare.
Exactly! I've been out for 6 weeks back in May/June and missed all the reports
and other activity on the projects I am/was a mentor to.
neral@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> My point is that with 1 mentor, everyone knows where the buck stops.
>> With >1 nobo
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> That
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Jim Jagielski 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"
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 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.
>
That's a fine point.
But it is counter to my experience.
For insta
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" an
I'll note that this is mostly questions about legalities of things and
technical tidbits - we are not having community discussions off-list per
se, just questions from individuals on how to word this, phrase that,
what RTC/CTR is etc. And everything is brought back to the list for a
thorough discus
Hello,
I concur with this. Once we got one of our mentors engaged -- Daniel Gruno --
its been smooth sailing. You know how we got him engaged? HipChat. He set us up
an account and now we can "@Humbedooh" with questions and get responses. No
more "Hello?! Please answer our emails..."
So yes, op
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 1
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 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,
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 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
+1000 (though I would argue a single highly committed mentor is sufficient)
-Original Message-
From: Julian Hyde [mailto:jh...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:46 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion
It's not activity o
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 st
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 10/12/2015 10:10 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>
> Regarding in
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2015 10:10 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Regarding inactive mentors, this is quite simple : we have a monthly
>
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Jim Jagielski 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
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2015 10:10 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding inactive mentors, this is quite simple : we have a monthly
>>> report that has to be signed off by mentors, if one mentor
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 it
On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 16:10 +0200, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Regarding inactive mentors, this is quite simple : we have a monthly
> report that has to be signed off by mentors, if one mentor does not sign
> it three time in a raw, shouldn't we consider that this mentor has
> already stepped down
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sam Ruby 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 ha
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> Now on to the substance of my reply:
>>
>> https://whimsy.apache.org/incubator/signoff
>>
>> If we can get some volunteers to split this list up, perhaps we can
>> reach out to those that
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Now on to the substance of my reply:
>
> https://whimsy.apache.org/incubator/signoff
>
> If we can get some volunteers to split this list up, perhaps we can
> reach out to those that haven't been participating in signoffs and see
> what change
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Now on to the substance of my reply:
>
> https://whimsy.apache.org/incubator/signoff
>
> If we can get some volunteers to split this list up, perhaps we can
> reach out to those that haven't been participating in signoffs and see
> what changes
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On 10/12/2015 10:10 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>
>> Regarding inactive mentors, this is quite simple : we have a monthly
>> report that has to be signed off by mentors, if one mentor does not sign
>> it three time in a raw, shouldn't we co
On 10/12/2015 10:10 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Regarding inactive mentors, this is quite simple : we have a monthly
report that has to be signed off by mentors, if one mentor does not sign
it three time in a raw, shouldn't we consider that this mentor has
already stepped down ?
No, it's no
Le 12/10/15 13:18, Rich Bowen a écrit :
> Fellow mentors,
>
> There was a conversation at ApacheCon about the Incubator. I'll leave
> it to the other participants to champion the particular parts that
> they are passionate about, but I was particularly concerned with
> mentor disengagement, and sug
Fellow mentors,
There was a conversation at ApacheCon about the Incubator. I'll leave it
to the other participants to champion the particular parts that they are
passionate about, but I was particularly concerned with mentor
disengagement, and suggestions for improving it.
A mentor's role is
40 matches
Mail list logo
