On 11/10/06, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday November 10 2006 11:06 am, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I mean at the very least I would expect to see +1 votes from the
> project mentors as soon as the vote thread starts on
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], since at least in theory if there was anything that
> would keep them from voting +1 they would have raised it on the
> project's dev list before it got anywhere near asking for the
> incubator's blessing. Right there that's at least one or two votes,
> if the project has trouble getting the remaining votes, well, maybe
> that says something about the level of interest in the rest of the
> foundation about the project itself. If we can't get three people on
> the incubator PMC motivated enough to say "yes, this release looks
> legally and procedurally sound" then maybe we shouldn't have the
> project at the ASF at all.
I'm +1 on this, but there is one problem:
In the last couple months, I've seen MULTIPLE instances where the mentors
for various projects (according to their proposal and STATUS pages)
didn't even know they were mentors for the project. I've seen responses
like "I didn't look at it or vote because I didn't know I was a mentor."
That's definitely a huge issue. I think periodically, the incubator PMC
should contact the mentors of each project directly and double check
that:
1) That person is still interested in being a mentor
2) That person still has the time to be a mentor
3) That person knows they ARE a mentor
I've not set the auto-reminder email up yet for incubator reports. I
was planning to send them to the private-ppmc mailing lists, but the
negative here is that they may not exist and for tlp's we currently
just send it to the chair.
I think sending it to the mentors might be an interesting alternative:
"As a mentor of XXX, you are going to be interested to know that a
report is due this month".
I'm seeing too many projects where the mentors seem to be "non-existent"
for whatever reason. (a lot of mentors are over committed) Thus, it's
hard to get the mentors to vote. If that's the case, we really should
try and find new (or at least additional) mentors for the project.
Part of this is due to what we expect of a mentor.
When I started mentoring Roller I thought I was meant to lead and try
and get things moving to graudation. I did happen to be a Roller
committer before it joined the ASF, but trying to do this utterly
burnt up the time I had for Roller and damaged my personal interest in
Roller. Being ever present, involved in development conversations and
yet focused on the graduation subjects doesn't work and isn't in
keeping with what I think of when I think of the word 'mentor'.
OpenEJB is going much better - the community are responsible for
incubating and graduating. I (and the other mentors) are there for
advice on how to do things, to get the ppmc up and running and to take
the role a chair would usually take (we request new users, let the
community know that they need to produce a report, inform
[EMAIL PROTECTED] of votes). That fits the word 'mentor' for me.
In both cases it's hard to get me to notice a vote - I don't read
every email in the dev/user list, I surf a combination of the two in
gmail periodically. So in both cases I need the community to kick me
in the shins and make sure I know there's a vote that needs mentor
involvement (release/new-committer) - I (or one of the other two
mentors) are then responsible for making sure that all 3 mentors vote
on it, or failing that to take it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's been a learning experience - apologies to Roller for having to
deal with me learning :)
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
