incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marko Rodriguez <>
Subject Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion
Date Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:15:37 GMT

I concur with this. Once we got one of our mentors engaged -- Daniel Gruno -- its been smooth
sailing. You know how we got him engaged? HipChat. He set us up an account and now we can
"@Humbedooh" with questions and get responses. No more "Hello?! Please answer our emails..."

So yes, optimal number of mentors -- 1. And if that mentor doesn't know the answer to the
question, he can route you appropriately.


On Oct 14, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:

> Agreed. My only comment would be that I still think that the
> optimal number of mentors is 1.
>> On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:45 AM, Julian Hyde <> wrote:
>> It's not activity on the dev list, or even report signoffs, that
>> matter most. Podlings, especially new podlings, have lots and lots of
>> questions, especially about infrastructure. Without at least two
>> responsive mentors to field those questions you feel like banging your
>> head on the wall. And you start wondering why you left the comfort and
>> convenience of github and whether Apache itself is fascinated by its
>> own brand.
>> Before you ask, you won't get podlings to send their questions to
>> another list, because we're all too proud to ask questions which in
>> retrospect always turn out to be dumb questions.
>> It's not possible to measure that kind of mentor activity, so I think
>> people are inclined to measure the "public" forms of activity as proxy
>> indicators.
>> Julian
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>>> For me, I consider being a mentor as I do being a member of a PMC.
>>> Occasionally one simply lacks cycles to be actively involved, but
>>> one is involve enough to see that others *ARE* involved, and so I
>>> am "unconcerned" about my inactivity during those times.
>>> My understanding is that this is OK and its one of the reasons
>>> why we *have* multiple mentors.
>>> "Shaming" inactive mentors would be akin to "shaming" PMC members who
>>> didn't post on the dev@ list this month, or who didn't vote on a release
>>> or etc...
>>> I am not, of course, referring to mentors who are truly MIA month in and
>>> month out. But, as someone said, if you remove those from the equation,
>>> the list of "active" mentors is pretty constant.
>>> So the question is "Is there a difference or problem between a podling
>>> with 10 mentors, of which 4 are 'active', as compared to a podling with
>>> 4 mentors, all of which are 'active'"??
>>>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Ted Dunning <> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sam Ruby <>
>>>>>> Sounds like reaching out to the inactive mentors is a great idea
and I
>>>>>> think we have a great example here of how complicated it can be.
>>>>> Nope.  I posted that link knowing that my name would be on it, and
>>>>> advocated that we should be having exactly this discussion.  I should
>>>>> either become more active on this, or (and probably more likely)
>>>>> remove myself as a mentor for this podling.
>>>> And possibly by so doing become a great example to others of us who can't
>>>> admit to ourselves that we are over-extended.
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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