Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Jan 9, 2015, at 1:35 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> ...I think the IPMC is doing almost all of the above better. Everything >> except for "Failed". I think that >> now we are blaming the mentor. Let's get over it. Not every podling will

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: > ...I think the IPMC is doing almost all of the above better. Everything > except for "Failed". I think that > now we are blaming the mentor. Let's get over it. Not every podling will > work That's distinct concerns IMO: some podlings are

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

Hi - We could better spend our energy looking at podlings with Mentor problems and deciding which of three possible states fits the podling. - "Failed" - no community is trully involved and there is nothing an active mentor could do. Let's just admit it and retire the podling. - "Needs Help" -

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:11:03AM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > > wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > All we care about is that the podling has an active mentor who knows when > > to ask for support and gets that support when they need i

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > I'm not seeing how this proposal fixes the problem either. However, I do like > that this proposal doesn't move responsibility and I like that it adds some > teeth to the IPMC (e.g. removal of inactive mentors and pausing

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

the IPMC though. Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -Original Message- From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargul...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 10:36 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: proposal: mentor re-boot On Thu, Jan

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Chip is correct. The tools we use in board meetings make it easy for us to > see how many PMC members in a TLP resolution are members. If there are not > enough we will sometimes put the project on a

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

the broader IPMC and sought out help from people privately who I trust to do the job well. Ross -Original Message- From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 10:11 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: proposal: mentor re-boot >

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

: Chip Childers [mailto:chipchild...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:42 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: proposal: mentor re-boot On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 05:20:40PM -0800, Henry Saputra wrote: > +1 > > I would recommend to remove that particular line about men

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

Ross Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -Original Message- From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:09 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: proposal: mentor

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > +1 > > All we care about is that the podling has an active mentor who knows when to > ask for support and gets that support when they need it. Following that statement to a logical conclusion, all podlings need to make

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

: Thursday, January 8, 2015 7:06 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: proposal: mentor re-boot On 08.01.2015 15:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > The two mentor minimum is critical. I was going to make it three but > reasoned that if two were active, they could do the job. Why? I'

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

--Original Message- From: Alan D.Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 9:43 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: proposal: mentor re-boot I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold mentors accountable but also give th

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On 08/01/15 16:48, Chip Childers wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 08:18:59PM -0800, Marvin Humphrey wrote: Retiring the role of Champion sounds like an idea whose time has come. We gave the Champion additional oversight responsibilities a while back -- but how many times since then has having tha

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 08:18:59PM -0800, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > Retiring the role of Champion sounds like an idea whose time has come. We > gave the Champion additional oversight responsibilities a while back -- but > how many times since then has having that additional layer made a difference?

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 05:20:40PM -0800, Henry Saputra wrote: > +1 > > I would recommend to remove that particular line about mentor staying > as mentor sake. > Either mentors join in as full fledge PMC (and as committer) or not at all. +1, with the one comment that I've heard the board(s) revie

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 08.01.2015 15:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> The two mentor minimum is critical. I was going to make it three but >> reasoned that if two were active, they could do the job. > > Why? I've not yet seen a single argument that would explain why

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On 08.01.2015 15:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > The two mentor minimum is critical. I was going to make it three but > reasoned that if two were active, they could do the job. Why? I've not yet seen a single argument that would explain why you need at least two active mentors. One active mentor at a

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 8, 2015, at 3:03 AM, jan i wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote: > >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:46 AM, jan i > >> wrote: >>> >>> On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Alan D. Cabrera > > wrote: >>> > On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > > On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:46 AM, jan i > > wrote: > > > > On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote: > > > >> > >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej > wrote: > >>> > >>> On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > What has changed in the > last year and a half is that we no longer ignore it when podlings fail to > report -- we put them into "monthly" and review the situation month to month. > Between that and requiring Mentor checkoff, we'll notice

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > We do have problems; see above. To address our problems, I advocate incremental, reversible changes and controlled experiments. > With that said, my proposal is not a radical overhaul. There are parts of it I can get behind. Taken toge

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

+1 I would recommend to remove that particular line about mentor staying as mentor sake. Either mentors join in as full fledge PMC (and as committer) or not at all. - Henry On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 07.01.2015 22:45, Henry Saputra wrote: >> If a mentor asked to st

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On 07.01.2015 22:45, Henry Saputra wrote: > If a mentor asked to stay as PMC after graduation just for the sake of > continue mentoring, then I would argue that the podling was not ready for graduation. A graduated TLP inviting the former mentor to the PMC is a different matter, but then the IPMC

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

Alan, thanks for the clarification. I agree that this is in the context of podling/ incubator projects. - Henry On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: >> >> One wording that could confuse people: >> "after which they are remo

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > > One wording that could confuse people: > "after which they are removed from the PMC unless they are committers." > > If someone already a PMC, he or she is also a committer. In ASF a > committer is someone who can commit code into the repos

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

One wording that could confuse people: "after which they are removed from the PMC unless they are committers." If someone already a PMC, he or she is also a committer. In ASF a committer is someone who can commit code into the repository. If a mentor asked to stay as PMC after graduation just for

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> The Incubator has made important progress. I want to quickly acknowledge that we have made immense, immense, progress thanks in no small part to our IPMC chairs over the years. A lot of hard work was done and that produced very good

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal > > From that page: > >People who wish to become mentors that are not in the IPMC must be a >novice mentor, who

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal >From that page: People who wish to become mentors that are not in the IPMC must be a novice mentor, whose mentorship is not counted as an active mentor, for at least one

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Upayavira wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015, at 06:46 PM, jan i wrote: >> On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > I’ve writte

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015, at 06:46 PM, jan i wrote: > On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > > > > > On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > >> I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:46 AM, jan i wrote: > > On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >>> >>> On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold >> men

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > > On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > > > On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold > mentors accountable but also give them a fair bit of autonom

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold >> mentors accountable but also give them a fair bit of autonomous authority >> during releases. >> >> https://wiki.apac

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold > mentors accountable but also give them a fair bit of autonomous authority > during releases. > > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal >

proposal: mentor re-boot

I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold mentors accountable but also give them a fair bit of autonomous authority during releases. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal What we would gain i