Hi Rich, As I noted previously, at least from my point of view we wouldn't be accepting a podling's report that wasn't signed off on. I had deliberately added a section to the report header separating podlings that didn't report (and hence their reports not being included) and podlings that did report but no mentor sign off (report included in the incubator's report).
My intention with doing this was that both of these groups would be marked as monthly. I only did the first group, mostly on a time constraint. The others should have been marked as well, but I've held off considering this discussion first. John On Fri Dec 19 2014 at 12:11:44 PM Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > I noted in my comments on the recent Incubator board report that I am > concerned, month after month, at the number of podlings that have no > mentor sign-off at all, as well as the ones where a minority of the > mentors sign-off. > > I certainly don't expect that every mentor has their full attention on a > podling every month, but I do expect that a podling that cares about its > incubation will seek out that mentor sign-off, and that the mentors who > have committed to help a podling into the family will have a few moments > every few months to look in and approve a report. > > The result, unfortunately, is that we have projects graduating with no > notion of the importance of reporting, and so we have TLPs that look at > reporting as a checkbox, submit exactly the same cut-and-paste report > each month, some of them without even changing stats and dates, or skip > their reporting entirely. > > I don't mean to point fingers here - this is a problem that has existed > literally since the beginning of the Incubator, and I'm not innocent of > it myself. Indeed, I don't show up often enough even on this list. > > But I wonder if we might, as the Board does, reject reports that have no > sign-off, and force projects to report again the following month, in an > attempt to require them to engage with their mentor(s) a little more? > This seems like a small, easily reversible, step, that has a good chance > of achieving something. > > Thoughts? > > (Please note that I originally started this thread on the IPMC list, and > some discussion has happened there, but it has been pointed out that > it's more appropriate to have this conversation in public.) > > -- > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen > http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
