Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors
Thanks for raising this Julian. I agree with your take on this situation and with your proposals. -s (Sid) On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > That's a fair concern. > > I think that the podling should mention in podling report if they need > help from > mentors and they don't have it (because the mentor is not active). > > Regards > JB > > On 03/29/2018 12:20 AM, Julian Hyde 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 > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: [Vote] Release of Apache-Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC1]
right! we will remove md5 from our griffin release 0.2.0 RC2. Thanks, William On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Henry Saputra wrote: > Ah my bad, I misunderstood the new guidance > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:50 AM Henk P. Penning wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, Henry Saputra wrote: > > > > > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 03:20:08 +0200 > > > From: Henry Saputra > > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [Vote] Release of Apache-Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC1] > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > I thought the reccomendation was you can include md5 as long as > including > > > other hash like sha? > > > >Eh, not exactly ; > > > >There is the /obligation/ to include some checksum (MD5 and/or SHA); > >and there is the (strong) recommendation to > >-- include some SHA (.sha1, .sha256, .sha512) > >-- not include MD5 (.md5) > >-- not include (legacy) ".sha" files. > > > >The idea is that new stuff must be 'clean' (no .md5's), > >but that there is no obligation to fix older, previously > >released stuff. > > > > > - Henry > > > >Thanks ; regards, > > > >HPP > > > > _ > > Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403_/ \_ > > Faculty of Science, Utrecht UniversityT +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \ > > Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/ > > http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penn...@uu.nl \_/ > > > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 10:43 PM Henk P. Penning wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Lionel Liu wrote: > > >> > > >>> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 03:13:24 +0100 > > >>> From: Lionel Liu > > >>> To: general@incubator.apache.org > > >>> Subject: [Vote] Release of Apache-Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC1] > > >>> > > >>> Hi all, > > >>>The Apache Griffin community has voted on and approved a proposal > to > > >>> release Apache Griffin 0.2.0-rc1. > > >> > > >>Please do NOT include .md5 files in your releases. > > >> > > >>See : https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and- > sums > > >> > > >>> Lionel > > >> > > >>Thanks ; regards, > > >> > > >>Henk Penning > > >> > > >> _ > > >> Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403_/ \_ > > >> Faculty of Science, Utrecht UniversityT +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \ > > >> Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/ > > >> http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penn...@uu.nl \_/ > > >> > > >> - > > >> 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 > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors
That's a fair concern. I think that the podling should mention in podling report if they need help from mentors and they don't have it (because the mentor is not active). Regards JB On 03/29/2018 12:20 AM, Julian Hyde 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 > -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [Vote] Release of Apache-Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC1]
Ah my bad, I misunderstood the new guidance On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:50 AM Henk P. Penning wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, Henry Saputra wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 03:20:08 +0200 > > From: Henry Saputra > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [Vote] Release of Apache-Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC1] > > Hi Henry, > > > I thought the reccomendation was you can include md5 as long as including > > other hash like sha? > >Eh, not exactly ; > >There is the /obligation/ to include some checksum (MD5 and/or SHA); >and there is the (strong) recommendation to >-- include some SHA (.sha1, .sha256, .sha512) >-- not include MD5 (.md5) >-- not include (legacy) ".sha" files. > >The idea is that new stuff must be 'clean' (no .md5's), >but that there is no obligation to fix older, previously >released stuff. > > > - Henry > >Thanks ; regards, > >HPP > > _ > Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403_/ \_ > Faculty of Science, Utrecht UniversityT +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \ > Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/ > http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penn...@uu.nl \_/ > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 10:43 PM Henk P. Penning wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Lionel Liu wrote: > >> > >>> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 03:13:24 +0100 > >>> From: Lionel Liu > >>> To: general@incubator.apache.org > >>> Subject: [Vote] Release of Apache-Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC1] > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>>The Apache Griffin community has voted on and approved a proposal to > >>> release Apache Griffin 0.2.0-rc1. > >> > >>Please do NOT include .md5 files in your releases. > >> > >>See : https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums > >> > >>> Lionel > >> > >>Thanks ; regards, > >> > >>Henk Penning > >> > >> _ > >> Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403_/ \_ > >> Faculty of Science, Utrecht UniversityT +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \ > >> Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/ > >> http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penn...@uu.nl \_/ > >> > >> - > >> 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 > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > I think the problem is serious. I also think that signoff rate is a better > metric in practice than it seems it would be. That problem is indeed pretty serious and also pretty chronic. As for the metric -- I really think that using mentor turnout on release voting threads will serve us well. > 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. Big +1 on the above. Perhaps if we: 1. get a clear indication on release vote turnout (as part of Incubator report) 2. add to it the sign-off turnout We can start at least nagging unresponsive mentors to begin with and if behaviour doesn't improve -- suggest that podlings start looking for a replacement. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors
Hi - Inline - responses to both. > On Mar 28, 2018, at 4:15 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > I think the problem is serious. I also think that signoff rate is a better > metric in practice than it seems it would be. I agree that it is quite serious. > > 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 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. Sign-off means that Mentors are doing the least they can do which is better than nothing. >> >> 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. Mentors need to be careful of their workload. Having the correct mentors for the community is also important. What I mean about correct will be below. >> >> 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. The rule of 3 was so that there were enough Mentors to provide the 3 +1 (Binding Votes) before we get to the IPMC Vote. Thankfully we have a few experts on the IPMC who are doing the required Voting and releases aren’t getting held up. >> >> 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. We really need to have the correct Mentors. I feel uncomfortable as one of only two mentors on Daffodil. It is an experiment of having Two. >> >> Is this problem as serious as I think it is? Would my proposed solutions >> help? I think that we need to also discuss what voting +1 to accept a podling should mean. The value currently is that everyone just +1s because the podling is “cool”. I think we should discuss these ideas: (1) Adding more questions to the podling: - about the number of dependencies. If a lot then we want Mentors who like that part of the process. - about any registered trademarks. If so then a Mentor with trademark experience is needed. (2) Think about whether a +1 (binding) VOTE means the IPMC member is willing to Mentor. If we can’t get enough Mentors then we can’t accept a podling. Regards, Dave >> >> Julian >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors
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 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 > >
[DISCUSS] Absent mentors
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
