I'm fine with 1 and 3, but 2 gives me pause. I like the idea of the maturity model, but is it yet another burden on mentors?
If we are trying to increase mentor engagement, we probably don't want to set too high a bar. -Taylor > On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:15 PM, John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> wrote: > > All, > > The Incubator PMC has received feedback from the board that changes may > need to be made to the structure of our report. Specifically, there is > confusion from the board members over how podlings get classified. There > is also a request to increase and improve mentor feedback on podling > reports. Based on this input, I would like to propose the following > changes to our report format. I would like to try to implement this for > the March report, if not before then. > > 1. Eliminate the podling summary section of the report. It shouldn't be on > the report manager to classify each podling. We have begun leveraging a > maturity model for podlings, while its not required to fulfill it serves as > an equivalent to this section. The list of podlings who failed to report > shall remain. > > 2. Add a "Podling Maturity Assessment" to the individual podling reports. > This would give a clear opportunity for each podling to describe how they > are doing, perhaps compared to the maturity model or our classic categories. > > 3. Change the mentor sign off section to include a per-mentor comment. > E.g. instead of the current: > > [ ](podling) mentor1 > [ ](podling) mentor2 > [ ](podling) mentor3 > > It would be: > > [ ](podling) mentor1 > Comments: > [ ](podling) mentor2 > Comments: > [ ](podling) mentor3 > Comments: > > And rename Shepherd/Mentor notes: to just "Shepherd notes:" > > Thoughts? > > John --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
