incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Podlings should be in charge of their mentors (was: Incubator report sign-off)
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:59:23 GMT
Perhaps then, there's a recommendation that:

- a member can be champion to only one pTLP at a time.
- a member can be mentor to no more than two pTLP at a time.

This to me looks like a good way to make sure a mentor can always do their
job - make sure they're not overloaded.

BTW these #'s (1 & 2) should be subjective as I'm just making guesses for
good #'s.

John

On Mon Jan 05 2015 at 7:38:24 PM Alan Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:

> A champion is merely a mentor who has publicly committed to being an
> active mentor, in some significant capacity, of a podling.
>
> The creation of such a role is symptomatic of a dysfunctional organization
> where responsibility and accountability has been diluted so much it's not
> at all clear who will actually follow through with their responsibilities.
>
> IMO, all that's needed is two active mentors.  To get that we need to hold
> mentors accountable.  If we do that then things become simpler and we can
> get rid of champions and shepherds; two role that were created to fill the
> gaps left by unaccountable mentors.
>
> > On Jan 5, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> 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 <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 08:18 PM, jan i wrote:
> >>>> On 5 January 2015 at 20:06, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
> >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','list@toolazydogs.com');>>
wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> >>>> 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
> it’s
> >>>>>> because:
> >>>>>> the podling is not popular and should probably be retired anyway,
> being
> >>>>>> put on hold will provide impetus for the podling to seek out
a new
> venue
> >>>>>> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message