incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: should podlings have informal chairs?
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:48:14 GMT
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 22, 2011 1:40 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <> wrote:


> +1 to what Joe is saying below.  The Incubator needs to do a far better
job both supporting it's projects (better mentors, better IPMC oversight),
as well as managing itself (more efficient and useful reports to the board,
website documentation).

I agree with this, however we need to define "better mentors, better IPMC
oversight". This thread, has gone some way to defining the later but the
former is much harder. Being a mentor is a very delicate balance between
observing and guiding. Where that balance should be is greatly dependent on
the community being mentored.

> On 2011-11-21 8:03 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> To me a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the reports are
>> misdirected- instead of informing the board about the activities of
>> the IPMC, it tells them about the podling's activities, which doesn't
>> scale properly.
>> We should be reporting to the board about OUR work, not the work of
>> the podlings.  Podlings should only be brought in for a few specific
>> examplesto mention.  That's the first thing to correct.
>> Once we start reporting about the crap WE did, then we can start figuring
>> out all the crap that's not getting done by mentors who aren't
>> It doesn't matter that there are lots of well-intentioned but otherwise
>> people mentoring projects, the fact is that they only harm the org by
not prodding
>> these projects along a graduation path or funneling them towards the
exit door.  Part
>> of how they manage to get away with that is that we pretend its
important to a podling
>> to create a sustainable community around itself, which is something most
of them
>> have no control over.  That is the reason for the long bouts of stalling
on many
>> levels, we need to do the sane thing and drop that bit of pretense, and
yes even
>> graduating projects that haven't necessarily met the silly developer
>> requirements- rules are not appropriate here, only very fuzzy benchmarks.
>> WE are responsible for evaluating the progress of our podlings, ALL of
them, and
>> clutch can help us do that at a basic level as a group.  But we need to
figure out,
>> quickly, how to change the review process for podling reports in a
scalable way
>> without us all being burnt out all at once.  I think the review needs to
take place
>> over a few days, on the podling's own dev lists, by 3 IPMC members
actively voting
>> on them.  We can still collate the podling reports on the wiki, but the
report we
>> hand to the board should come from us, and it should be the product of
those reviews.
>> We can do this wiki-style if we want to, or just have Noel poll this
list for "mentor
>> comments" to be included in the report.  A quick scan of the podling
lists wrt those
>> report votes should be sufficient to determine if a podling needs more
IPMC representation,
>> and can be done by Noel or collectively if we'd like to start doing more
>> WDYT?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message