On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','l...@toolazydogs.com');>> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > > > The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part > > that would require us to do something with poddlings put > > on hold. Unless we come up with clear exit criteria for > > this new state -- I don't think we're solving any real problems > > here. > > There’s no silver bullet here, if a podling cannot whip up a mentor it’s > because: > the podling is not popular and should probably be retired anyway, being > put on hold will provide impetus for the podling to seek out a new venue > there are not enough mentors > There is no way to magically solve the latter. You mean popular within the pool of mentors (IPMC), the project can still be popular on several other scales. I might lack experience, but why do more active mentors guarantee that the podling will be a better TLP ? We try to solve the problem of mentors not being active but adding more volume. I don't believe that is the right cure. I do agree with bernard that it is the podling that should ask for help....but the IPMC should solve it., rgds jan i > > > Regards, > Alan > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
