incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Gruno <>
Subject Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion
Date Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:13:21 GMT
And sometimes, s/spare/sparring partner/ :)

I find it extremely useful to have a fellow mentor to bounce ideas and
perceptions off on. Sometimes having a really engaged mentor and a more
loosely engaged works well, as you get both a view from the inside and
the outside.

With regards,
On 10/14/2015 03:10 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> If it can work, that is very good. With intermittent availability, I have
> often seen the need for a spare.
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:53 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 <>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sounds like reaching out to the inactive mentors is a great idea
>> I
>>>>>>> think we have a great example here of how complicated it can
>>>>>> 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:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message