On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/15, 1:34 PM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" > <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > >A good mentor is a guide, not a manager. > > > >The proposals might seem top down, but when executed correctly, they are > >not. > > OK, I'll accept that, but if executed correctly, the current Incubator > probably doesn't need changing either. > Yup. So it keeps doing its thing. The existence of pTLPs at the ASF does not preclude or replace the Incubator. > > IMO, it is hard to find a lot of really dedicated volunteers. So your > choices are to work the really good ones really hard, try to "manage" > other volunteers, or try to find a way to work without really dedicated > volunteers. > > In my experience, the more you try to control and check on these other > volunteers, the faster they will go away. > Sure. And the pTLP allows the community to work at its best, with the peanut gallery (read: general@incubator and the IPMC) getting in their face. There are *way* fewer controls/checks in the pTLP approach. It relies on the ASF members to share their knowledge and to provide the needed guidance. No extra controls or checks, beyond those of a normal TLP. (well, except for that "probationary" or "provisional" warning) > > Apache has a really great system of accepting code from volunteers with > limited time. You don't have to make a time commitment, just occasional > code commitment. Can the ASF find a way to teach culture via volunteers > with limited time? Probably. That's why I mentioned the notion of having > more ASF people involved in a project, but not as the initial PMC. Real > communities teach their culture by hanging out around the newcomers, but > no one person is signed up to do the teaching. They do it by having lots > of villagers watching the newbies checking on what the newbies are doing > and saying when they can. That's hard to do on email, but if certain > newbie efforts require a shout out outside their list, then it is easier > for this larger band of villagers to hear that something important is > going on. > That is certainly a possibility, and has always been possible here in the Incubator. Hasn't happened. And when you *do* add a whole bunch of people? Guess what happens? ... John thinks Joe is paying attention. Joe thinks John is paying attention. Nobody does. The podling goes pear-shaped. Regardless, nothing about the pTLP proposal interferes with your ability to test your theory. The pTLP proposal is not exclusionary. You are welcome to set up a new podling with 20 Mentors. My proposal is for communities who want to try a different path. It isn't and won't be the only path. Based on my personal experience when Apache Subversion went through incubation... the pTLP approach would have worked much better. We had a half-dozen ASF Members that could have formed the initial PMC. They would have added the next 20 right off the bat. And after some IP clearance, would have been done, and asked for removal of the "provisional" flag. The community was designed as an Apache community from the start. But the Incubator attempted to apply checklist items that didn't make sense. Those checklists were for communities that had no understanding of Apache. The Incubator model works very well for some, not so well for others. Mentors are important, yes. And we don't have enough. Mandating they fall into a single mentoring approach? Or that their available time must be allocated in a certain way? Nah... Let them follow what interests them, and to follow their thoughts on shaping a community into a fantastic Apache community. Cheers, -g
