On 12/29/2014 09:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 12/22/2014 11:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before
would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that we're still
limited
by the following options wrt. resolving mentors AWOL issues:
1. get rid of IPMC altogether and move to the pTLP model
2. make this a poddling issue: if a poddling fails to hunt down ALL
the mentors for a sign-off -- reject its report
-0.5 to punishing podlings for the failings of mentors. That would
really suck.
Why not? They get "punished" anyway by the results. This is to me a fail
fast mechanism. I think they should understand early on in the
incubation projects what's expected of them and what they should expect
from the ASF, among other things mentoring. Maybe they made a poor
choice early on to chose mentors that don't fit their needs. They can
then ping the mentors first and ask for more involvement, and if that
doesn't happen, well, change mentors. Or maybe something changed in the
personal life of the mentor that prevents them from providing effective
mentorship (and say they didn't get to notify the podling). Same thing.
In the end what matters are the results. If we emphasized that this is
not about punishing or assigning blame, but about providing podlings
with the support they need and we signed up to provide, it would be ok,
I think.
My $0.02,
Hadrian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
