incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira>
Subject Re: Podlings should be in charge of their mentors (was: Incubator report sign-off)
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2015 20:04:03 GMT
An "IPMC responsibility" is a "no responsibility".

How many people here are prepared to take on a struggling project "for
the love of the Incubator", with no particular interest or investment in
the technology, or connection to the people involved?

In the end, if a project wants to join the ASF, the responsibility for
locating mentors (in the first place) and for sustaining their interest,
or locating replacements, has to rest with those who have the greatest
investment in the project. It is the only way it can work, without
giving the impression that the Incubator PMC has the ability to "assign"
people to a project, which is simply never going to happen.

The best we can do is provide as much guidance to projects about how to
engage their mentors, and how best to attract replacements when those
mentors go awol, or leave gracefully. That much the Incubator PMC can


On Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 06:22 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <>
> 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 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.
> I've always been +1 on adding a feedback question to the poddling
> reporting
> template. I'll do it shortly now that there's more consensus around the
> idea
> compared to when I first proposed it.
> I'm strongly -1 on adding yet another state to the Incubator state
> transition
> diagram. In my book shifting responsibility to a poddling achieves no
> useful
> purposes and is going to clutter Incubator with half-alive poddlings.
> The way I see this: once a poddling gets accepted it becomes an IPMC
> responsibility to make sure we empower it to be successful. It is true
> that circumstances change, but at that point it still needs to be an IPMC
> responsibility to either ponny up required mentorship resources or make
> a tough call of retirement. No need to chop the proverbial tail
> bit-by-bit.
> I'll rest this thread for some time now...
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message