I don’t understand how obstructing people from becoming mentors is going to increase their involvement. In the unlikely event that I got interested enough in an incoming project to want to mentor it, no matter what rules are in place, my doing so depends on my commitment to actually mentoring. Putting additional hoops in place to jump through would just make me think that there’s too much bureaucracy not related to actually mentoring.
I think you want a way of asking potential mentors, “Are you sure you want to do this? Really? Truly? If you sign up to mentor and disappear you will be dragging the project down and pushing it away from Apache. Are you still sure?” Why not just ask them directly? David Jencks > On Aug 12, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi, > >> Is there a problem we are trying to solve or is this just a concern that >> it might become a problem as we scale? > > It’s already a problem. I suggest you look at the missing mentors / mentors > who don’t sign off report and look at how they were appointed. I can post the > stats if you want, but perhaps not to this list. > > Changing this would also mean people who want to be IPMC members need to do a > little work at the IPMC (and it should be a low bar), that hopefully means > more a bit more knowledge transfer / active mentors self select and a few > more people helping the IPMC out. > > Plus it’s different to how every other PMC appoints people, I don't see why > the incubator needs to be special in this regard. > > Thanks, > Justin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
