Daniel- If you have these concerns about mentors, a TLP proposal, or even an active TLP substantiated only by private information: notify the board via board-private@. That's why it's there.
The proposal accuses mentors of selling influence, and acting contrary to the foundation's interest. That is by definition a problem to which we react, with proof of guilt. "Proactively" treating volunteers as suspect demands that mentors prove their innocence. Assuming guilt is not "proactive," but uncivil and immoral. There are also practical objections. Every IPMC member has a binding vote on decisions made by the incubator, period. IPMC members may voluntarily recuse themselves, but a policy that suppresses the votes of "suspicious" groups is invalid. The TLP resolution is only recommended by the IPMC. Anything achieved by this proposal is better implemented by the board considering that recommendation in context- including evidence provided privately- and rejecting improper proposals with actionable feedback to the PPMC. -C On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: > Does there always have to be an actual problem before we can propose a > policy? must we always be reactive instead of proactive? > > Yes, I am in a way implying that some mentors are, perhaps, not neutral > in their work. I will not back it up with specific names or contexts, as > I don't want to take a trip to lawsuit town for things I cannot back up > with publicly available information. > > I don't find this to be uncivil accusations - can you outline a specific > segment that you find uncivil? I am proposing a set of basic rules - > which is naturally up for discussion and improvement - that would > potentially alleviate us from having some nasty discussions - whether > they be public or private - about the neutrality and honesty of > recommendations, and hopefully ensure we have a more leveled playing > field in the incubator. > > I'll stop here, as my eyesight is playing a trick on me today and not > allowing me to see what I type. > > With regards, > Daniel. > > On 10/09/2015 08:03 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: >> What problem does this solve? >> >> This proposal lacks context. It implies that mentors are not neutral, >> and that they are motivated by interests not shared by the ASF. But it >> does not outline the merits of that belief, neither does it specify >> how this proposal would address them. Instead of allowing those >> definitions to float, this discussion would be more productive if it >> were about some concrete problems for which there is evidence. Yet >> another thread of rude responses to uncivil accusations is >> unproductive, even if it is an IPMC tradition. -C >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Hi Incubator folks, >>> >>> I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy for >>> incubating podlings: >>> >>> - A mentor must not be financially tied to the project or its incubation >>> status. >>> - A mentor must not have a vested interest in incubating, graduating or >>> dismantling a podling that goes beyond the general Apache mission >>> - A mentor must not be affiliated with the entity granting the code >>> (company or original project community) >>> >>> Furthermore, I would like to see this extended to votes on graduating or >>> retiring podlings, so that only people with no organizational (aparty >>> from the ASF) or financial ties to the project (or the companies behind >>> it) can cast a binding vote on graduation or retirement. >>> >>> This would essentially mean: >>> >>> - If you work for a company (or are hired as consultant/advisor) that is >>> entering a project into incubation, you cannot mentor it nor vote >>> for/against its incubation, graduation or retirement. >>> - If you are a in the original community behind the project, you cannot >>> mentor it nor vote for/against it. >>> >>> I believe this would create a neutral mentorship whose sole mission is >>> to guide podlings with the interests of the ASF in mind. >>> >>> >>> Please do discuss this. If there is (mostly) positive feedback, I would >>> like to, at some point, have a vote on including this in the Incubator >>> policy. I realize this would cut down on the number of potential >>> mentors, and I would ask that more people step up to the challenge of >>> mentoring if adopted. >>> >>> With regards, >>> Daniel >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
