pTLP adds a great deal of overhead to the board unless there is a review process somewhere else. I've posted on this before so will not repeat here beyond summarizing as moving responsibility for the problem does not fix the problem.
I'm not seeing how this proposal fixes the problem either. However, I do like that this proposal doesn't move responsibility and I like that it adds some teeth to the IPMC (e.g. removal of inactive mentors and pausing of podlings with insufficient mentors - though I still dispute ticking a box is hardly an indication of an active mentor) Ross Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -----Original Message----- From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:09 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: proposal: mentor re-boot On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > On 08.01.2015 15:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> The two mentor minimum is critical. I was going to make it three but >> reasoned that if two were active, they could do the job. > > Why? I've not yet seen a single argument that would explain why you > need at least two active mentors. One active mentor at any given time > is sufficient for all current requirements. A very, very strong +1 to that. In fact, I'd say anything that adds to the complexity and bureaucracy of mentorship requirements -- is a 'no go' in my opinion. That's one reason I'm so strongly in favor of pTLP. They piggyback off of the process we already have adding very little bureaucracy and tracking overhead. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
