incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Gruno <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy
Date Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:18:27 GMT
On 10/09/2015 08:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Gruno <> wrote:
>>> ...Furthermore, I would like to see this extended to votes on graduating or
>>> retiring podlings,..
>> IMO this is where independence is important. We could require that 3
>> "organizationally independent" IPMC members review each podling before
>> graduating or retiring. Those people do not need to be project
>> mentors.
> I much prefer a formulation of "3 independent" over "no financial
> ties", and would prefer such a criteria be considered whenever the
> impulse arises to ensure that NO involved individual has a vested
> interest.
> I'll go further and say that financial interests are but one way in
> which individuals have a vested interest in the success of a project,
> and echoing a statement by Ross -- having a vested interest is not a
> bad thing.

Perhaps my initial suggestion needs some modification to the wording.
People with a vested interest (for a certain definition of the term) is
in itself not a bad thing when it comes to mentoring, but it can become
tricky when it comes to giving recommendations to the IPMC about how to
proceed from a neutral standpoint. That is what I aimed to have us work on.

I would imagine no one would object to a policy that says you cannot
have a binding vote if you have a financial interest in graduating a
podling, but my real point is we should leave the decision making to
those who are truly neutral, much as we let a judge and/or a neutral
jury decide if we're guilty or not in a legal case.

Perhaps we could change it to:

- Binding votes on incubation, graduation and/or retirement are only
valid when given by members of the IPMC who are independent from the
podling in question. Mentors are free to recommend such actions, but
cannot cast a vote themselves.


With regards,

> Finally, I would prefer a model whereby those that have achieved ASF
> member status are given the benefit of the doubt in matters involving
> a group vote when it comes to their ability to separate their ASF role
> from their relationship with their employee.  Nothing wrong with still
> requiring 3 completely independent votes, but having a rule that
> excludes participation by those that have demonstrated their merit as
> ASF members just seems wrong.
> - Sam Ruby
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message