I think the problem is serious. I also think that signoff rate is a better metric in practice than it seems it would be.
Adding the additional metric seems like a small step that could help. Being aggressive about removing non-mentors is a very good idea. It is best if mentors remove themselves, but it is imperative that the incubator has a realistic idea about how many mentors there really are. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 17:20 Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: > The incubator has an ongoing problem with lack of mentor engagement. > Mentors are a crucial component of the incubation process. Incubation is > the time when projects learn the Apache Way, and they cannot learn in a > vacuum. > > I’d like to discuss possible solutions to this problem. I’d like to hear > from both podlings (PPMC members) and from IPMC members. > > (By the way, it’s not just a problem for podlings. As a mentor, I am > demoralized when I feel my co-mentors are not pulling their weight, and I > get a little closer to burn-out.) > > How to detect deadbeat mentors? One solution that has been discussed > before is counting mentor sign-offs on podlings’ quarterly reports. Any > project that received one or two sign-offs was deemed to be doing just > fine. This is an imperfect metric. > > Another remedy is to require podlings to be proactive: if they are not > receiving adequate supervision, they should reach out to the IPMC and > demand a change in mentors. The problem is, podlings have by definition not > been through incubation before, so do not know what to expect. They don’t > want to rock the boat. > > I propose another solution. Let’s add a question to the podling report > template, as follows: > > > Have your mentors been helpful and responsive? If not, describe what > advice or help > > you needed, or need: > > It isn't too onerous for the podling, and only embarrasses mentors who > deserve to be embarrassed. > > What to do about deadbeat mentors? The current thinking is that every > project should have three mentors, and if at least one of them is active, > that’s OK. I think that the “rule of 3” actually makes the problem worse. > It’s difficult to find three motivated individuals (or find enough work for > them to do), so a podling will inevitably have one or two inactive mentors. > It has become the norm that most mentors are inactive. > > I propose that we get rid of the rule of 3. If mentors are not active, > they should be encouraged to step down, and if they don’t, the IPMC should > remove them. If this leaves the podling with zero or one mentors, then IPMC > can step in and appoint new mentors. A podling with two active mentors is > probably doing just fine. > > Is this problem as serious as I think it is? Would my proposed solutions > help? > > Julian > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
