On May 8, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Eric Johnson <e...@tibco.com> wrote: > Mostly a lurker, but a quick reply... > > And, in order to facilitate continuous improvement over time, the incubator > as a whole could periodically survey random incubator committers and > determine whether they're getting the support they expect from their mentors. > That would serve two purposes - provide a routine way to assess whether the > expectations of the mentorees lines up with the clearly documented role, and > also assessing whether the randomly chosen mentor is living up to their > responsibilities.
Yeah, an anonymous comment box for podlings to submit comments to the IPMC. That's another tooling idea. > One last suggested refinement: > > At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the third > is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such as one of > the mentors looking to shed their responsibilities. One point that has come > out of the discussion has been a lack of clear responsibility. Adding more > mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two allows one as backup for the other. Yes, this was what I was thinking as well. Two active mentors, maybe one or two inactive ones but since they officially declared themselves inactive the active mentor know not to assume anything of them. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
