On Dec 29, 2014 12:11 PM, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. >
What I object to is the requirement that *all* mentors sign off. We all have an off month now and then.
