On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:46 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > >> > >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >>>> I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold > >> mentors accountable but also give them a fair bit of autonomous > authority > >> during releases. > >>>> > >>>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal < > >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal> > >>>> > >>>> What we would gain is transparency and simplicity. There would be no > >> false expectations. Podlings would know where they stand. Work would > be > >> equitably distributed. > >>>> > >>>> No more layers. No more additional roles and confusing/diluted > >> responsibilities. No more shuffling. > >>> > >>> What you're proposing, then, is that we institute mentor licenses with > >>> requirements over and above those for ASF membership. In effect, you'd > >>> create an additional level of earned merit for mentors ... which is > >>> probably a good thing. > >> > >> I don’t think that I’m following. Mentors need to be members of the > IPMC > >> but that doesn’t mean they need to be ASF members. > >> > >>> What I don't understand is this: where's the motivation for anyone to > >>> submit to this additional burden? There's a lot of stick in your > >>> proposal, but a woeful lack of carrot ... so, most likely not going to > >>> work for a bunch of volunteers. > >> > >> What extra burden? The proposal is not asking mentors to do anything > more > >> than what they shouldn’t already be doing. All the proposal does is > hold > >> the mentors accountable for their inactivity and to add more of an > >> incentive for PPMCs to be proactive in their relationships w/ mentors; > >> something that the PPMCs shouldn’t already be doing. > >> > >> The carrot for both podlings and mentors is that there is no second > >> gauntlet of voting/review by the IPMC for releases. > >> > > > > In general I like the proposal especially the carrot. But I do have a > > couple of concerns: > > > > "An active mentor is removed from a podling if that mentor does not > > review/sign off on a release. An active mentor is removed from a podling > if > > that mentor does not review/sign off on a board report." > > > > Can a mentor not take vacation ? I think this need to contain a clause, > > that if the mentor has adviced the PPMC about the absence this will not > > happen. > > Yes, they certainly can! All they need to do is notify the PPMC and IPMC > that they are going to be inactive. :) well You say that , but the text does not state the same. > > > "Being put on hold means that no committers can be added, no PPMC members > > can be added, and no releases can be performed" > > This would be a no go for me. If a podling has lost a mentor, but are > > actively seeking a new mentor, the IPMC must step in to accept a new > > committer, PPMC member or release. The IPMC has accepted the podling, so > it > > is very unfair, to punish a podling, that does a active job to replace a > > mentor. > > If a mentor really goes MIA, should those things be taking place without > mentor oversight? IMO, no. No, this is not punishment, this just makes > the current state of affairs clear and explicit. Plus, the PPMC needs to > take on a more active role in things; they are not teenagers in the back > seat. of course they would! first of all it only takes 1 mentor to do that not 2, secondly - new committers is the responsibility of the PPMC not the mentor - PPMC is the responsibility of PPMC/IPMC not the mentor - Releases is the responsibility of PPMC/IPMC not the mentor according to our current documentation. I don't disagree with your proposal, I just want an escape clausal in case a podling run into problems caused by our eager to over administrate. rgds jan i > > > I really like the clear ruleset, this would also remove the need for > > shepherds I assume. > > Yep, and champions go away too. You’ll notice I've added a few more rules > so that we address the reverse of “fascination of the ASF brand” issue. > That being the “fascination of a podling brand”. If a mentor wants to be > on the red carpet on opening day, they need to have put some skin in the > game. > > Soooooo many things get simpler. > > > Regards, > Alan > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
