+1000 (though I would argue a single highly committed mentor is sufficient)
-----Original Message----- From: Julian Hyde [mailto:jh...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:46 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion It's not activity on the dev list, or even report signoffs, that matter most. Podlings, especially new podlings, have lots and lots of questions, especially about infrastructure. Without at least two responsive mentors to field those questions you feel like banging your head on the wall. And you start wondering why you left the comfort and convenience of github and whether Apache itself is fascinated by its own brand. Before you ask, you won't get podlings to send their questions to another list, because we're all too proud to ask questions which in retrospect always turn out to be dumb questions. It's not possible to measure that kind of mentor activity, so I think people are inclined to measure the "public" forms of activity as proxy indicators. Julian On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > For me, I consider being a mentor as I do being a member of a PMC. > Occasionally one simply lacks cycles to be actively involved, but one > is involve enough to see that others *ARE* involved, and so I am > "unconcerned" about my inactivity during those times. > > My understanding is that this is OK and its one of the reasons why we > *have* multiple mentors. > > "Shaming" inactive mentors would be akin to "shaming" PMC members who > didn't post on the dev@ list this month, or who didn't vote on a > release or etc... > > I am not, of course, referring to mentors who are truly MIA month in > and month out. But, as someone said, if you remove those from the > equation, the list of "active" mentors is pretty constant. > > So the question is "Is there a difference or problem between a podling > with 10 mentors, of which 4 are 'active', as compared to a podling > with > 4 mentors, all of which are 'active'"?? > >> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> >>>> Sounds like reaching out to the inactive mentors is a great idea >>>> and I think we have a great example here of how complicated it can be. >>> >>> Nope. I posted that link knowing that my name would be on it, and >>> advocated that we should be having exactly this discussion. I >>> should either become more active on this, or (and probably more >>> likely) remove myself as a mentor for this podling. >> >> >> And possibly by so doing become a great example to others of us who >> can't admit to ourselves that we are over-extended. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
