Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKQbXgBEtnQZAYK-novDJk7Nt6PaNwJLOiE5i_kGCsXAFtS91w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALhtWkd4JEKefqr0zOYCa5ZYjr0awxv24tFc8aVBq5yzPq0SNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKQbXgBEtnQZAYK-novDJk7Nt6PaNwJLOiE5i_kGCsXAFtS91w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 18:49:06 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CACO5Y4w4D=vh7Uq4wUfMwkmEMGErfMAitZB37X46egmLyrgEkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Anticipating my reign of terror -- new idea for December
From: Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org>
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+1; this matches my understanding. -C

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
> My understanding of mentor sign off is that all active mentors sign off,
> not just one. Lack of sign off means the mentor has been busy elsewhere for
> that quarter and feels unqualified to signoff.
>
> So,whilst looking for absent mentors is good I'd suggest we already have a
> process in place and thus dont need more process. We simply, as an IPMC,
> need to use the existing process as (at least I feel) it was intended.
>
> Ross
>
> Sent from my tablet
> On Nov 4, 2012 10:30 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I want to thank all of you for the vote(s) of confidence in recommending me
>> as the IPMC chair. While it's always possible that the Board will decline
>> the suggestion, it doesn't seem too terribly presumptuous to start looking
>> ahead.
>>
>> My goal is to continue along the path blazed by Jukka, and then, like him,
>> hand over. So, set your egg-timers for a bit more than a year, and think,
>> please, about stepping up.
>>
>> I think that the shepherd system has worked well. At the same time, I think
>> that it was invented to compensate for a problem, and that we could make
>> additional progress toward resolving that problem.
>>
>> Why do we have shepherds? Because we have had mentors who have found it
>> impractical to exercise detailed supervision on the podlings. Our job as an
>> entire PMC is to supervise the podlings. It seems logical to me that the
>> mentors of each podling would provide that supervision. Of course, things
>> happen. Shepherds have been helping to detect holes and compensate for
>> those things.
>>
>> With this idea in mind, for December, I do not want to eliminate shepherds.
>> But I want to float a proposal that might, over time, help us stop needing
>> them.
>>
>> At the bottom of the template for each podling's report, I'd like to have a
>> space for each of the mentors, every month, to reaffirm his or her
>> involvement in the podling. Thus, instead of (at most) one mentor signing
>> off on the report, itself, we'd get a reading on how many mentors are in
>> the game. If the number were less than 3 -- and -- especially, if it were
>> less than one, we'd be alerted and could make it a priority to find
>> replacements.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org