From general-return-35633-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Thu May 3 21:23:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 978B7CAC4 for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 21:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 79175 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2012 21:23:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 79018 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2012 21:23:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 79010 invoked by uid 99); 3 May 2012 21:23:09 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 May 2012 21:23:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jukka.zitting@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.175] (HELO mail-we0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 May 2012 21:23:03 +0000 Received: by wera1 with SMTP id a1so1564281wer.6 for ; Thu, 03 May 2012 14:22:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=1zIyZhFhcMG8FLV8EobHlMZqee/D7OxZwe0mGUdV1lg=; b=OJdnEbTqh0k+JB71U3vwujZ2UppsjsaNdtGrSgW4bD78nF4+nmlahyQGmjE7NqSuiZ ng5qVnyI33gVtns0ZPvh1DZmgIEF7L1ZeIBMAIhPdYTdRekoXE0ePVojndNTFN7mbkp9 fetJP5S0c0SdTVYyQgjloH0N2NlhF617sDBYMcbRLamIgUJfjK8hXApY6at/3KD1etym GZK6rRHpEbP70hnL78USnESFAIKKti28SGCrvFKsSZ0Mp+243tHGJPvMVQEoyR9eEBvJ k54CFe0TYnqe4GR5t8zKuoWgOdeiQaBJXRK13X6TdEEqBiXzPq3iPjboablFjpgnoG9W B+Ow== Received: by 10.180.102.100 with SMTP id fn4mr6867670wib.1.1336080162167; Thu, 03 May 2012 14:22:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.99.66 with HTTP; Thu, 3 May 2012 14:22:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jukka Zitting Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 23:22:21 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Mentor cleanup To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM, ant elder wrote: > I'm not a huge fan of the current emphasis being placed on reports. > Another avenue for finding inactive mentors could be things like > looking at mentor participation in poddling releases. Is it better or > worse to have mentors who don't sign their poddling wiki reports or > don't review their releases? Even with release reviews we have some > mentors who say they don't do release reviews, bizarre as that sounds > i guess people have different perspectives. Good point. There's definitely room for different approaches to mentoring, and they can often supplement each other quite nicely. > Mentors have different styles, some are quite hands on some aren't, > and ideally a poddling, especially nearing graduation, should be > largely self supporting so having no mentor interaction is not > necessarily a problem and it may even be a positive sign. Exactly. My focus on community interactions on the mailing list and report sign-offs here is just a rough proxy for mentor activity. As you demonstrate, it's by no means infallible and I definitely don't want to cast those aspects as some kind of a "one true approach" to mentoring. > Another approach you could try if you want to find inactive mentors > could be to just send an email to general@ with the list of all the > poddling mentors and ask are you still active and see who answers. Yep. I actually considered doing just that, but figured that using available data to preprocess the message should help us focus on those cases that really do need to be looked after. I guess a few false positives are inevitable with this approach, but that's fine as long as we're just gathering information and have a mechanism for correcting such mistakes. Anyway, let's see how this works out and tweak the approach based on experience. BR, Jukka Zitting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org