incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: Anticipating my reign of terror -- new idea for December
Date Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:53:41 GMT
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
> Empirically, Model 1 did not work. That's been tried over the past ten years.

Yes, and Jukka picked up the gauntlet thrown down by the board and
used the shepherds to turn the situation around. The resulting system
does not feel like a finished product, and I suspect that the Finn in
question will agree with me. At this point, I think that I, with the
communities' permission, would like to keep the shepherds as they are
and push to get tuned-in mentors into every project. If we can't
accomplish that, then my next step would be to ask shepherds to feel
more responsibility for more supervision.

> *shrug* ... whatever you want to do. I just wanted to speak up that
> you appeared to be conflating the mentor and shepherd roles (as they
> had been defined over the past couple months). If you *intend* to
> combine them (Model 1), then fine.
> Cheers,
> -g
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:
>>> > 2. We need the shepherds to compensate for mentor shortages in addition
>>> to
>>> > discovering those.
>>> I disagree.
>>> In short, you are conflating mentors with IPMC Members. They serve
>>> *very* different roles.
>> Greg, let me start by writing that I am not in some hurry to turn shepherds
>> into pie. If they turn out to be a part of the long-term landcape, no
>> worries here. On the other hand, let me try to refine my idea of why they
>> should wither away.
>> Model 1: The IPMC members supervise the podlings. This is
>> delegated/scaled/divided-and-conquered by the mentors, who are IPMC
>> members. Mentors supervise in addition coaching and guiding. If they do
>> this job correctly, we would not need shepherds. In support of this model,
>> I'll point out that we require mentors to be IPMC members. Why do we do
>> this, if mentoring is not part of the supervisory process?
>> Model 2: The mentors are the good cops, exercising a light touch, so we
>> need some other IPMC members to perform supervision. Thus, shepherds. Greg,
>> if I'm messed up your logic here, please excuse me.
>> When I serve on a non-I-PMC, I read every message on dev, user, and
>> private, and I try to pay some attention to commits. We don't ask shepherds
>> to do anything like that. I've always thought that we asked mentors to do
>> that.
>> So, it seems to me, if we prefer model (2), we not only need shepherds, we
>> need to ask more of them. If we prefer model (1), we need to continue to
>> work to achieve a situation where every podling has a sufficiency of
>> active, supervising mentors -- and identifying people in the podlings who
>> have earned that role is one way to do it.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message