community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tammo van Lessen <tvanles...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: GSoC Mentor vetting procedure
Date Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:38:44 GMT
Now that I understood that no action by or within the PMC is required,
I'm perfectly fine with the new procedure.

So a non-binding +1 from me.

Cheers,
  Tammo

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:35, Ulrich Stärk <uli@spielviel.de> wrote:
> Do we have a concensus here? If so we will prepare a mail to pmc@ explaining the process.
>
> Uli
>
> On 19.03.2012 10:08, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 19 March 2012 08:42, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Nóirín Pluincéid <noirin@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>> ...Mentors should have the backing of the PMC responsible for the project
>>>> their student is working on - because we've promised that to Google, and
>>>> because we need to know that if the mentor disappears, the PMC will step
in....
>>> +1, IMO we just need the PMC to say "we are ok with this GSoC project
>>> happening with this mentor".
>>>
>>> Having the mentor CC their PMC list when they inform code-awards of
>>> their intention to mentor, and someone from the PMC ack that, is not
>>> much work and I think it's sufficient.
>> +1
>>
>> The tiny bit of extra work for PMCs significantly reduces admin work
>> if we have an issue like last year (I not none of the people who
>> worked to resolve the issue last year are against this idea ;-)
>>
>> PMCs are supposed to provide oversight for their projects not anyone else.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>



-- 
Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de

Mime
View raw message