It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody?
While I certainly don't expect you as a mentor to "fix all that is broken in the Incubator" single-handedly, I do expect you to care enough to try and "fix all that is broken" in your podling. It shouldn't take a board member's opinion for you to critically review the reports of your podling and provide them with your own feedback on how they are doing. That IMO is what you signed up to do as mentor. Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM > Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small > but otherwise happy podlings)] > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith <stuk...@stoo.me.uk> > wrote: > > <snip> > >>> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic > patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one > way > or the other soon. >> >> If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no >> question, they both have my vote on that question. > > As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is > safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken > in the Incubator. > >> If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and >> paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with >> little or no change, then I strongly object. > > ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC > has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that > encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. > > IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it > breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato > has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC > community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. > > (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any > podling which leaves the main sequence...) > > Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. > A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient > restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. > > Robert > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
