Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>> ASF members -do- have additional insights from private forums, and the
>>> ability to oversee most of the private forums at the ASF. This means
>>> they can (and do) go back to the archives to look back at how a specific
>>> issue (people issues, company issues, legal issues) were addressed in
>>> similar cases to help guide a podling away from trouble.
>> I've done this several times and it proved to be a valuable asset to me
>> as a mentor.
>
> But not an invaluable one that you could not perform the task without. But
> this is why we had previously compromised on ensuring that at least one
> Mentor is an ASF Member.
1/3 is not sufficient, given the absenteeism that is evident. This goes
to my earlier comment about mentoring-the-mentor, if the 1/3 becomes 0/2
for a time (which is happening too frequently), what then?
>>> They also have made their mark on the Foundation (which is why they are
>>> members). That gives me a bit of reassurance that our mentors have less
>>> to prove, and can help guide the project from 10,000 feet rather than in
>>> the trenches, where egos can get in the way.
>
>> I was opposed to your line of thought until I read this paragraph. This is
>> a very important point I did not consider before.
>
> And very disrespectful to those who have admirably performed the Mentor role
> without having something to prove. Becoming a Member does not grant some
> magic insight. It is often the other way around: those who demonstrate it
> become Members.
First, no disrespect intended. I've repeatedly pointed out this is a forward
looking assessment of the policy, and not ment to rewrite history, so don't
even waste bandwidth framing it as such.
Second, becoming a member *acknowledges* insight, which I want the incubator
out of the business of determining, and put that back on the members where
it belonged. Where it isn't meeting our expectations (1/yr is too infrequent)
take that discussion and solutions to members@ discussion.
Lastly, I'm curious 1. how many (often is a gross overstatement) and 2. would
this have been true with or without their mentoring a project (my guess is
it was not a deciding factor in their nomination or election, but feel free
to correct me).
>> I think I would agree with you now that mentors should be ASF members
>> although IPMC members need not be ASF members.
>
> Oh? So people wo are not qualified to be a Mentor, should still be
> permitted to make binding decisions regarding the Incubator and all its
> projects?
Cast a binding vote in the project? Yes, of course. Mentorship is a heavier
hammer than that, when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
|