incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
Date Wed, 21 Jan 2015 23:58:02 GMT
We should not be focusing on who is/is not ticking a box on a report - it's a red herring and
therefore a distraction. 

We should be focusing on identifying and assisting podlings that are not in receipt of adequate
and appropriate mentoring. 

There is nothing else of importance.

Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: Marvin Humphrey [] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> Perhaps there are one or two good ideas in the proposals, but change 
> does not need to be as jarring.

I hope that the Incubator can make the best of those opportunities.

> For example the IPMC ought to confirm with mentors if they are still 
> being a mentor to a particular podling. There can be many reasons why 
> not and we just need to ask. It could be that the podling never 
> achieved a visible development community.

It's possible to automate pinging Mentors who didn't sign off on podling reports.  A Python
script could parse the last Incubator report (plus others going back N months if we want richer
historical info), then send one email per podling to the podling's private list, CC'd to private@incubator.
 The script could be run by the Report Manager or the Chair each month after the report is

> Statements like shepherds dilute mentor responsibility are false. A 
> shepherd provides a mechanism for the IPMC to review the Podling/Mentor relationship.
> This is something the IPMC needs to do when voting to graduate a 
> podling. We should be ALL be doing shepherding work.

I can see what Alan's getting at, though.  Unless the podling is in trouble, the podling contributors
ought to be writing the report.  The people who are then best placed to give informed feedback
on that report are the podling's Mentors.  But instead, the people who provide commentary
on the state of the podling community tend to be the shepherds, whose understanding is necessarily
more superficial.  Doesn't that seem strange?

Marvin Humphrey

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

View raw message