Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I understand your concern but, at present, I don't see it being an issue nor something that we need worry about. We hope and trust mentors to wear their hats well. > On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > Hi Incubator folks, > > I would like to propose we

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

ating to that community’s activities. A double whammy." > > Full blog at > http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/apache-asserts/apache-openoffice-can-i-depend-on-software-built-by-volunteers--3570412/ > > -Original Message- > From: Reto Gmür [mailto:r...@apache.org] > Sent: Sund

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

But it is basically *core* to who and what we are. > On Oct 12, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Marko Rodriguez wrote: > > Hi, > >> We hope and trust mentors to wear their hats well. > > This quote from a colleague of mine has always stuck with me: > > "Hope is not a

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Hi, > We hope and trust mentors to wear their hats well. This quote from a colleague of mine has always stuck with me: "Hope is not a strategy." Take care, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com > >> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: >> >> Hi

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

che.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > Date: Friday, October 9, 2015 at 5:14 PM > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy > > >I do not agree with this proposal I will elaborate m

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

90089 USA > > ++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: jpluser <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 06:52PM, Reto Gmür wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > > Hi Incubator folks, > > > > > > I would like to propose we adopt a mentor

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

a.gov > > > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > > > ++++++ > > > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department > > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 U

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Mentors are, by definition, either: A) ASF Members B) someone who has shown enough understanding of the Apache Way to be invited to the IPMC (and should at least be considered for membership, IMHO). I would think that in either case, they should know how/when/why to check their corporate

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 02:45PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > Producing good code is a community effort. When it comes down to just the > mentors fix that themselves, there is something wrong with the community of > the podling. > > This discussion is not about what participants do with their mentor hat

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:02 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > Mentors are, by definition, either: > > A) ASF Members > B) someone who has shown enough understanding of the Apache Way to be > invited to the IPMC (and should at least be considered for membership, > IMHO). > In at

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

-1 Mentors who have no interest (financially or purely technical doesn’t matter in the end) will not find enough time to _really_ look into the projects health. Be honest with yourself: how much do you look into the code if you are not working on it yourself? How could you then detect that

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:47 AM Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 10/11/2015 03:44 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:36 AM Daniel Gruno > wrote: > > > >> On 10/11/2015 03:34 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > >>> > Am 11.10.2015 um 14:45

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I'm -1 on this. We have people working for companies who have a vested interest probably on most PMC's at Apache and why should we have a different set of rules for the Incubator PMC than any other PMC? If there is a specific concerns that an individual is acting against the ASF's best interest,

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On 10/11/2015 03:44 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:36 AM Daniel Gruno wrote: > >> On 10/11/2015 03:34 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>> Am 11.10.2015 um 14:45 schrieb Pierre Smits : Producing good code is a community

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:36 AM Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 10/11/2015 03:34 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > >> Am 11.10.2015 um 14:45 schrieb Pierre Smits : > >> > >> Producing good code is a community effort. When it comes down to just > the > >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Producing good code is a community effort. When it comes down to just the mentors fix that themselves, there is something wrong with the community of the podling. This discussion is not about what participants do with their mentor hat on in the podling. I expect we all appreciate what mentors do

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

> Am 11.10.2015 um 14:45 schrieb Pierre Smits : > > Producing good code is a community effort. When it comes down to just the > mentors fix that themselves, there is something wrong with the community of > the podling. I never questioned that. But the proposal sounds

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > Hi Incubator folks, > > > > I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy for > > incubating podlings: > > > > - A mentor

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Is there something else going on that I am not aware of? Is someone using undue influence where they shouldn’t be? On the Legal list dealing with hypothetical situations is continually avoided. While a code of conduct for mentors might make sense, penalizing mentors who are trying to educate

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

11, 2015 9:53 AM > To: general <general@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Daniel Gruno <humb

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

org] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: general <general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed.

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > Personally I would focus more on better oversight of podling and mentor > activity. The goal is to catch the occasional problem case rather than put > restrictions in place. I'm not sure how to do that though. I

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I’m -1 on on this. The whole premise of the ASF is that it is a meritocracy and that volunteers at various “levels” of the organization have attained their status because they are trustworthy. Without this premise, the ASF falls apart. Finally, it’s not clear to me that this addresses the

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: >>> ...Furthermore, I would like to see this

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > I would imagine no one would object to a policy that says you cannot > have a binding vote if you have a financial interest in graduating a > podling, I would. People on the IPMC and ASF are supposed to be

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Daniel Gruno wrote on 10/9/15 3:18 PM: > On 10/09/2015 08:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: ...Furthermore, I would like to

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I said *better* not *more* -Original Message- From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 2:34 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy > On Oct 9, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Ross Gardler <ros

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

gt; > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: jpluser <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov <javascript:;>> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org <javascript:;>" < > general@incubator.apache.org <javascript:;>> > > Date: Fri

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

> > > > > > -Original Message- > From: jpluser <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > Date: Friday, October 9, 201

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On 10.10.2015 14:05, Pierre Smits wrote: > Since we're conducting ASF politics here, you're asserting that you're > corrupt, anti-social and a nutcase? > And the rest of privileged contributors of the ASF as well? Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote? If not, I suggest you go and

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 09:06AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 10/10/2015 07:51 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > We should address perceived, and certainly provable, instances of > > corruption at the Foundation directly, rather than prescribe policy that > > seeks to prevent future instances as if there

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

+++ > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: jpluser <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > Date: Friday, October 9, 2015 at 5:14 PM > T

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On 10.10.2015 20:11, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 09:06AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: >> On 10/10/2015 07:51 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >>> We should address perceived, and certainly provable, instances of >>> corruption at the Foundation directly, rather than prescribe policy that

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

++ -Original Message- From: jpluser <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Date: Friday, October 9, 2015 at 5:14 PM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

This is all SO insane! Sounds like a war program. Cheers from JavaX - we now have auto-migrating programs. Stefan Am 09.10.2015 17:07 schrieb "Daniel Gruno" : > Hi Incubator folks, > > I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy for > incubating podlings: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 09:05PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 10.10.2015 20:11, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 09:06AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > >> On 10/10/2015 07:51 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > >>> We should address perceived, and certainly provable, instances of > >>> corruption

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On 10/10/2015 Daniel Gruno wrote: I'm not suggesting we start auditing people. As later clarified, I am suggesting people recuse themselves from voting if they (or others?) feel that they have economic or other corporate interests that may cloud either their judgment or their perceived judgment.

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On 10/10/2015 07:51 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > We should address perceived, and certainly provable, instances of > corruption at the Foundation directly, rather than prescribe policy that > seeks to prevent future instances as if there is a precedent (but there > isn't one here... at least one

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > Hi Incubator folks, > > I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy for > incubating podlings: > > - A mentor must not be financially tied to the project or its incubation > status. I'm very strongly -1

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Since we're conducting ASF politics here, you're asserting that you're corrupt, anti-social and a nutcase? And the rest of privileged contributors of the ASF as well? Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On 10.10.2015 09:06, Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 10/10/2015 07:51 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >> We should address perceived, and certainly provable, instances of >> corruption at the Foundation directly, rather than prescribe policy that >> seeks to prevent future instances as if there is a precedent

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

What are you referring to, Konstantin? Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:36PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > Does there always have to be

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:38AM, Greg Trasuk wrote: > Hi Daniel: > > Discussion intertwined below… > > Cheers, > > Greg Trasuk > > > On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > > > Hi Incubator folks, > > > > I would like to propose we adopt a mentor

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 01:29AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > What are you referring to, Konstantin? I am referring to the progressives of the world and all "policy frameworks" they are so readily unleashing on everybody because they have an urge to meddle. I am very much agree with Chris and Ross on

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:36PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > Does there always have to be an actual problem before we can propose a > policy? must we always be reactive instead of proactive? "We can't just stay on a side and wait, we should do something!" - sounds all too familiar, eh? > Yes, I am in

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I do not agree with this proposal I will elaborate more later Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 9, 2015, at 8:07 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > Hi Incubator folks, > > I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy for > incubating podlings: > > - A mentor must not

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Meaning: proactively trying to doing the right thing, trying to define boundaries before wrongdoing happens, is wrong? Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > Daniel-

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

> > -Original Message- > From: Pierre Smits [mailto:pierre.sm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 2:26 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy > > Meaning: proactively trying to doing the right thing, trying to def

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

No. Meaning that starting from a place of no-trust in an environment where trust is critical is wrong. Ross -Original Message- From: Pierre Smits [mailto:pierre.sm...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 2:26 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Daniel- If you have these concerns about mentors, a TLP proposal, or even an active TLP substantiated only by private information: notify the board via board-private@. That's why it's there. The proposal accuses mentors of selling influence, and acting contrary to the foundation's interest. That

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

We should address perceived, and certainly provable, instances of corruption at the Foundation directly, rather than prescribe policy that seeks to prevent future instances as if there is a precedent (but there isn't one here... at least one not spoken aloud, right?). > A mentor must not be

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Daniel Gruno wrote on 10/9/15 11:07 AM: > Hi Incubator folks, > > I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy for > incubating podlings: > > - A mentor must not be financially tied to the project or its incubation > status. > - A mentor must not have a vested interest in

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Hi, On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > ...Furthermore, I would like to see this extended to votes on graduating or > retiring podlings,.. IMO this is where independence is important. We could require that 3 "organizationally independent" IPMC members

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

What problem does this solve? This proposal lacks context. It implies that mentors are not neutral, and that they are motivated by interests not shared by the ASF. But it does not outline the merits of that belief, neither does it specify how this proposal would address them. Instead of allowing

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: >> ...Furthermore, I would like to see this extended to votes on graduating or >> retiring podlings,.. > > IMO this is where

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Does there always have to be an actual problem before we can propose a policy? must we always be reactive instead of proactive? Yes, I am in a way implying that some mentors are, perhaps, not neutral in their work. I will not back it up with specific names or contexts, as I don't want to take a

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On 10/09/2015 08:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: >>> ...Furthermore, I would like to see this extended to votes on graduating or

[DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Hi Incubator folks, I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy for incubating podlings: - A mentor must not be financially tied to the project or its incubation status. - A mentor must not have a vested interest in incubating, graduating or dismantling a podling that goes beyond

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

It seems to me that the negatives of your proposed policy outweigh the positives. Presumably the goal is to prevent mentors from making biased decisions due to conflicts of interest. There are other approaches to solving CoI, such as declaring conflicts of interest and, Apache’s current

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

sal there). Ross -Original Message- From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:humbed...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 8:07 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy Hi Incubator folks, I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy fo

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

Hi Daniel: Discussion intertwined below… Cheers, Greg Trasuk > On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > Hi Incubator folks, > > I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy for > incubating podlings: > > - A mentor must not be financially