incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: proposal: mentor re-boot
Date Thu, 08 Jan 2015 18:12:14 GMT
pTLP adds a great deal of overhead to the board unless there is a review process somewhere
else. I've posted on this before so will not repeat here beyond summarizing as moving responsibility
for the problem does not fix the problem.

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)


Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Branko ─îibej <> wrote:
> On 08.01.2015 15:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> The two mentor minimum is critical. I was going to make it three but 
>> reasoned that if two were active, they could do the job.
> Why? I've not yet seen a single argument that would explain why you 
> need at least two active mentors. One active mentor at any given time 
> is sufficient for all current requirements.

A very, very strong +1 to that. In fact, I'd say anything that adds to the complexity and
bureaucracy of mentorship requirements -- is a 'no go' in my opinion.

That's one reason I'm so strongly in favor of pTLP. They piggyback off of the process we already
have adding very little bureaucracy and tracking overhead.


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

View raw message