incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: Incubator report sign-off
Date Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:10:56 GMT
Hi Rich!

Thanks for raising this point and giving us a bit more of a forcing
function to tackle an old problem: accountability for mentors.

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Rich Bowen <> wrote:
> I certainly don't expect that every mentor has their full attention on a
> podling every month, but I do expect that a podling that cares about its
> incubation will seek out that mentor sign-off, and that the mentors who have
> committed to help a podling into the family will have a few moments every
> few months to look in and approve a report.

I've been thinking about this for quite some time (and trying to seek
a solution by various means) and it seems to be that we have to
start from a very basic expectation setting.

First of all, *my* expectation is that multiple mentors on the project
are more of redundancy or HA consideration. IOW, my expectation that
a project needs to have at least one active mentor at all times, but
it doesn't have to be the same person. Thus, I expect at least a signle
sign-off on the report and I don't mind if it ends up being a single one
too much.

Second biggest expectation that I have is that mentors are extension
of the IPMC, not part of the poddling. They are akin to professors or
faculty members -- they are not part of the student body. As such
we, as IPMC are accountable to make sure that mentors perform
their duties. My expectation is that it is as unfair to ask poddling to
actively pursue mentors who are missing in action as it would
be unfair to ask students to hire detectives to hunt down professors
who don't show up for class. What is fair, is to provide poddlings
with a semi-format feedback channel for IPMC to monitor things
like mentors MIA.

I would like to pause here and ask everybody to chime in with
what they thing are the right expectations on the above two points.

> But I wonder if we might, as the Board does, reject reports that have no
> sign-off, and force projects to report again the following month, in an
> attempt to require them to engage with their mentor(s) a little more?

As was pointed by John, we're already rejecting reports with no
mentor sign-off. Before we potentially take it one step further
I'd like to get clarity on the expectations first (and then I can
volunteer to document that as well!).


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

View raw message