2009/12/8 Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>: > I just submitted my first set of edits here. I adopted a fairly > high-handed attitude of rewriting to improve clarity -- according to > my ideas of clarity. If you all find it to be a train wreck just roll > it back and tell me what you don't like, and I'll try again.
Thank you. "High handed" is good at this stage. I'll review your changes soon. > I did have some questions that came up where I'm not sure what was > intended, either in document structure or in program(me) structure. > > Question 0: Program or Programme? I made it consistently Programme, > though I wonder about using the British form in this one place in the > entire ASF. I'm British, it would be nice to have something that's spelled right ;-) (honestly I don't have an opinion on this one). > Question 1: "How does the Mentor Programme work?" is an 'h1' with only > a single 'h2' under it. Also, much of the content above it is, in > fact, a quick summary of how the program works, and the 'Draft: the > ASF Mentoring Programme' below it is the detailed description. Should > this h1 be eliminated and the content below it all be promoted? +1 > Question 2: I am confused about the intended bootstrapping process. A > would-be contributor shows up. To get started, that person needs to > design a proposed project. That design process requires a mentor > interaction. If the person already has a particular ASF project in > mind, he or she could ask one of the identified mentors from that > project for assistance. If the person does not have a particular ASF > project in mind, then what? We will help them find their way? In reality we'd work with them to find a suitable project to work on and hand hold them in their first steps into that community. I see it as arranging to meet a shy friend at the door to the party so they don't have to go in alone. > It seemed to me that there has to be some initial engagement between > some generic mentor from the programme to help the new person navigate > to the point of making contact with a specific project community. If > that's the intention, I can write it to state that more clearly. I think tat's what I have in mind, so clarity there would be good. > Question 3: I don't understand the intention of "The mentee is > expected to document guidance provided by the mentee within the > appropriate documentation." What documentation would that be? Not sure (I'm reading out of context), but I think this is saying the mentee has to help us write documentation for those who come later. That is they help us write the mentor/mentee docs. > Question 4: Not all projects like incremental submissions. Some prefer > proposed changes to mature for in a patch until complete. (e.g. > Lucene). OK, we need to accommodate that then. > Question 5: The word 'project' is a big ambiguity problem. The entire > ASF is organized as projects. So it is very hard to write this up to > as to keep straight mentee projects and ASF projects without a lot of > verbiage. If someone had another idea for what to call the mentee > activities (activity? task? quest?) it would help. Yes, this has come up in GSoC and in conversation with a prospective mentee over on the Wookie list. Activity and task is probably too fine grained. Quest kind of works because it's a well known training technique in the academic sector, is it so well known outside of that sector? I'm afraid I have no other suggestions. > Question 6: Should the formal education material be on it's own page? > Long confluence pages are hard to work with. +1, formal education part does not apply to all mentees. Ross -- Ross Gardler OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
