incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: proposal: mentor re-boot
Date Fri, 09 Jan 2015 02:31:30 GMT
Hi -

We could better spend our energy looking at podlings with Mentor problems and deciding which
of three possible states fits the podling.

- "Failed" - no community is trully involved and there is nothing an active mentor could do.
Let's just admit it and retire the podling.

- "Needs Help" - a mentor would really help. They need it and want it. We try to find one.

- "Going Fine" - could be a TLP. We help them graduate.

I think the IPMC is doing almost all of the above better. Everything except for "Failed".
I think that now we are blaming the mentor. Let's get over it. Not every podling will work.



On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <>
>> I'm not seeing how this proposal fixes the problem either. However, I do like that
this proposal doesn't move responsibility and I like that it adds some teeth to the IPMC (e.g.
removal of inactive mentors and pausing of podlings with insufficient mentors - though I still
dispute ticking a box is hardly an indication of an active mentor)
> The thinking is that a mentor is at least honest; a reasonable assumption.  If they claim
to have reviewed a release or board report then they can be trusted to have done so to the
best of their abilities.
> The two mentor minimum rule addresses the possible unevenness in ernest mentors’ abilities.
> There is no silver bullet but this proposal covers a lot of the perennial problems that
the Incubator seems run into without changing responsibilities; a nice incremental step. 
It also simplifies the roles that podlings need to grok.  Finally, it adds more impetus for
PPMCs to take ownership in their incubation.
> Regards,
> Alan

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

View raw message