incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: Podlings should be in charge of their mentors (was: Incubator report sign-off)
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2015 23:42:38 GMT
Makes sense :)

On 01/05/2015 06:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Back in 2013, I suggested asking the Champion to accept a very clear
> level of reporting responsibility: to write a sentence or two _every
> month_ or find someone else to do it. That's one person whom I wanted
> to ask to sign up, for the duration of an incubation, to pay enough
> attention to be able to report a basic heartbeat.
> ?
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Upayavira <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 08:18 PM, jan i wrote:
>>> On 5 January 2015 at 20:06, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM, jan i <> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera <
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','');>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part
>>>>>>> that would require us to do something with poddlings put
>>>>>>> on hold. Unless we come up with clear exit criteria for
>>>>>>> this new state -- I don't think we're solving any real problems
>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>> There’s no silver bullet here, if a podling cannot whip up a mentor
>>>>>> because:
>>>>>> the podling is not popular and should probably be retired anyway,
>>>>>> put on hold will provide impetus for the podling to seek out a new
>>>>>> there are not enough mentors
>>>>>> There is no way to magically solve the latter.
>>>>> You mean popular within the pool of mentors (IPMC), the project can still
>>>>> be popular on several other scales.
>>>> I’m not speaking of popularity of mentors; I regret that choice of words.
>>>> I am stating that active and healthy podlings seem to have no trouble
>>>> attracting active mentors.
>>>> The converse seems to be true.  Unhealthy podlings seem to attract mentors
>>>> who have signed up out of pity and subsequently go MIA.
>>> I agree with the last part, I still have to see mentors volunteer for
>>> small
>>> active and healthy projects which might not be main road. Of course it
>>> depends on how active and healthy is defined, but as an example my little
>>> project Corinthia barely managed to get 2 mentors, while in the same time
>>> span we got 3 committers.
>>>> Before anyone replies, I understand this is not a hard and fast rule but
>>>> an imperfect qualitative observation on my part.
>>>> Anyway, active and responsible mentors will eventually get to all podlings.
>>>>> I might lack experience, but why do more active mentors guarantee that
>>>> the
>>>>> podling will be a better TLP ?
>>>> I’m not sure who’s making that assertion.
>>> Well its because I cannot see why a podling need more than 1 active
>>> mentor
>>> at all times....having multiple is fine, to cover each other, but it
>>> should
>>> not take more than 1 mentor to learn a podling, what it needs to
>>> understand. The suggestion implicit says 2 mentors is the minimum needed
>>> for at podling to become a successful TLP.
>>>>> We try to solve the problem of mentors not being active but adding more
>>>>> volume. I don't believe that is the right cure.
>>>> We’re not adding volume.  The volume is already there.  We’re just making
>>>> the state of affairs more explicit and transparent and adding culpability
>>>> for MIA mentors.
>>> Do we have a rule today that a podling needs at least 2 active mentors
>>> (if
>>> we have that, then we would not have a problem with sign offs, or a lot
>>> of
>>> dead podlings), at least I have not seen it....that is what I mean by
>>> adding volume.
>>> If just 1 mentor is active and sign off the reports, then I do not see
>>> the
>>> problem.
>>>>> I do agree with bernard that it is the podling that should ask for
>>>>> help....but the IPMC should solve it.,
>>>> Yes, it should help solve problems but if there are no mentors available
>>>> there are no mentors available.
>>> Then the IPMC should not have accepted the podling in the first place!
>>> It is simply not fair to make the life of a podling, depending on whether
>>> or not we have mentors available (REMARK after accepting the proposal) !
>>> If
>>> the podling have a healthy community and are active, we cannot and should
>>> not close it down, just because we have a mentor problem.
>>> To me telling a podling it cannot grow its community nor make releases,
>>> is
>>> the same as closing it down.
>> Jan,
>>  From an idealistic perspective, you are completely right. Apache should,
>> once a project has been accepted, provide the support needed.
>> The reality is that, given the ASF's volunteer nature, that simply won't
>> always work.
>> I'd much rather we be clear with projects right up front, saying
>> something like:
>> "To join the Incubator, you need one or more mentors. To get to
>> graduation, you will need the support of those mentors. If mentors
>> become unavailable, you will need to seek replacements. Unless you have
>> already learned the ways of the ASF and are ready to graduate, you will
>> need to keep engaged with your mentors. If possible, engage in the wider
>> ASF, and develop connections with others who might be in a position to
>> assist with mentorship should one or all of your current mentors become
>> unable to fulfill the role. "
>> This is, actually, what happens, and I'd much rather we just said it
>> like that :-)
>> Upayavira
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message