incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Anticipating my reign of terror -- new idea for December
Date Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:52:27 GMT
> > 2. We need the shepherds to compensate for mentor shortages in addition
> to
> > discovering those.
>
> I disagree.
>
> In short, you are conflating mentors with IPMC Members. They serve
> *very* different roles.
>

Greg, let me start by writing that I am not in some hurry to turn shepherds
into pie. If they turn out to be a part of the long-term landcape, no
worries here. On the other hand, let me try to refine my idea of why they
should wither away.

Model 1: The IPMC members supervise the podlings. This is
delegated/scaled/divided-and-conquered by the mentors, who are IPMC
members. Mentors supervise in addition coaching and guiding. If they do
this job correctly, we would not need shepherds. In support of this model,
I'll point out that we require mentors to be IPMC members. Why do we do
this, if mentoring is not part of the supervisory process?

Model 2: The mentors are the good cops, exercising a light touch, so we
need some other IPMC members to perform supervision. Thus, shepherds. Greg,
if I'm messed up your logic here, please excuse me.

When I serve on a non-I-PMC, I read every message on dev, user, and
private, and I try to pay some attention to commits. We don't ask shepherds
to do anything like that. I've always thought that we asked mentors to do
that.

So, it seems to me, if we prefer model (2), we not only need shepherds, we
need to ask more of them. If we prefer model (1), we need to continue to
work to achieve a situation where every podling has a sufficiency of
active, supervising mentors -- and identifying people in the podlings who
have earned that role is one way to do it.

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