incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:50:40 GMT
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> ASF members -do- have additional insights from private forums, and the
>>> ability to oversee most of the private forums at the ASF.  This means
>>> they can (and do) go back to the archives to look back at how a specific
>>> issue (people issues, company issues, legal issues) were addressed in
>>> similar cases to help guide a podling away from trouble.
>> I've done this several times and it proved to be a valuable asset to me
>> as a mentor.
> But not an invaluable one that you could not perform the task without.  But
> this is why we had previously compromised on ensuring that at least one
> Mentor is an ASF Member.

1/3 is not sufficient, given the absenteeism that is evident.  This goes
to my earlier comment about mentoring-the-mentor, if the 1/3 becomes 0/2
for a time (which is happening too frequently), what then?

>>> They also have made their mark on the Foundation (which is why they are
>>> members).  That gives me a bit of reassurance that our mentors have less
>>> to prove, and can help guide the project from 10,000 feet rather than in
>>> the trenches, where egos can get in the way.
>> I was opposed to your line of thought until I read this paragraph.  This is
>> a very important point I did not consider before.
> And very disrespectful to those who have admirably performed the Mentor role
> without having something to prove.  Becoming a Member does not grant some
> magic insight.  It is often the other way around: those who demonstrate it
> become Members.

First, no disrespect intended.  I've repeatedly pointed out this is a forward
looking assessment of the policy, and not ment to rewrite history, so don't
even waste bandwidth framing it as such.

Second, becoming a member *acknowledges* insight, which I want the incubator
out of the business of determining, and put that back on the members where
it belonged.  Where it isn't meeting our expectations (1/yr is too infrequent)
take that discussion and solutions to members@ discussion.

Lastly, I'm curious 1. how many (often is a gross overstatement) and 2. would
this have been true with or without their mentoring a project (my guess is
it was not a deciding factor in their nomination or election, but feel free
to correct me).

>> I think I would agree with you now that mentors should be ASF members
>> although IPMC members need not be ASF members.
> Oh?  So people wo are not qualified to be a Mentor, should still be
> permitted to make binding decisions regarding the Incubator and all its
> projects?

Cast a binding vote in the project?  Yes, of course.  Mentorship is a heavier
hammer than that, when necessary.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message