incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: proposal: mentor re-boot
Date Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:03:34 GMT
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:

>
> > On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:46 AM, jan i <jani@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej <brane@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> >>>> I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only
hold
> >> mentors accountable but also give them a fair bit of autonomous
> authority
> >> during releases.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal <
> >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal>
> >>>>
> >>>> What we would gain is transparency and simplicity.  There would be no
> >> false expectations.  Podlings would know where they stand.  Work would
> be
> >> equitably distributed.
> >>>>
> >>>> No more layers.  No more additional roles and confusing/diluted
> >> responsibilities.  No more shuffling.
> >>>
> >>> What you're proposing, then, is that we institute mentor licenses with
> >>> requirements over and above those for ASF membership. In effect, you'd
> >>> create an additional level of earned merit for mentors ... which is
> >>> probably a good thing.
> >>
> >> I don’t think that I’m following.  Mentors need to be members of the
> IPMC
> >> but that doesn’t mean they need to be ASF members.
> >>
> >>> What I don't understand is this: where's the motivation for anyone to
> >>> submit to this additional burden? There's a lot of stick in your
> >>> proposal, but a woeful lack of carrot ... so, most likely not going to
> >>> work for a bunch of volunteers.
> >>
> >> What extra burden?  The proposal is not asking mentors to do anything
> more
> >> than what they shouldn’t already be doing.  All the proposal does is
> hold
> >> the mentors accountable for their inactivity and to add more of an
> >> incentive for PPMCs to be proactive in their relationships w/ mentors;
> >> something that the PPMCs shouldn’t already be doing.
> >>
> >> The carrot for both podlings and mentors is that there is no second
> >> gauntlet of voting/review by the IPMC for releases.
> >>
> >
> > In general I like the proposal especially the carrot. But I do have a
> > couple of concerns:
> >
> > "An active mentor is removed from a podling if that mentor does not
> > review/sign off on a release. An active mentor is removed from a podling
> if
> > that mentor does not review/sign off on a board report."
> >
> > Can a mentor not take vacation ? I think this need to contain a clause,
> > that if the mentor has adviced the PPMC about the absence this will not
> > happen.
>
> Yes, they certainly can!  All they need to do is notify the PPMC and IPMC
> that they are going to be inactive.  :)

well You say that , but the text does not state the same.

>
> > "Being put on hold means that no committers can be added, no PPMC members
> > can be added, and no releases can be performed"
> > This would be a no go for me. If a podling has lost a mentor, but are
> > actively seeking a new mentor, the IPMC must step in to accept a new
> > committer, PPMC member or release. The IPMC has accepted the podling, so
> it
> > is very unfair, to punish a podling, that does a active job to replace a
> > mentor.
>
> If a mentor really goes MIA, should those things be taking place without
> mentor oversight?  IMO, no.  No, this is not punishment, this just makes
> the current state of affairs clear and explicit.  Plus, the PPMC needs to
> take on a more active role in things; they are not teenagers in the back
> seat.


of course they would! first of all it only takes 1 mentor to do that not 2,
secondly
- new committers is the responsibility of the PPMC not the mentor
- PPMC is the responsibility of PPMC/IPMC not the mentor
- Releases is the responsibility of PPMC/IPMC  not the mentor
according to our current documentation.

I don't disagree with your proposal, I just want an escape clausal in case
a podling run into problems caused by our eager to over administrate.

rgds
jan i

>
> > I really like the clear ruleset, this would also remove the need for
> > shepherds I assume.
>
> Yep, and champions go away too.  You’ll notice I've added a few more rules
> so that we address the reverse of “fascination of the ASF brand” issue.
> That being the “fascination of a podling brand”.  If a mentor wants to be
> on the red carpet on opening day, they need to have put some skin in the
> game.
>
> Soooooo many things get simpler.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>

-- 
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

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