You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> on 2013/03/23 11:23:59 UTC
Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Hello,
I know at least one podling where 75% of the mentors is awol. We don't
have an oversight on the "awol"-state, just the shepherds do know for
the projects they shepherd.
We have status reports, which should be signed by all mentors. I
believe reading, verifying and signing a podling report is not so much
work and it is the least a mentor should do.
My proposal:
We should contact all Mentors who have not signed a report 2 times in
a row if they are still committed to their role. If we get no response
within a week, we should remove them as a mentor from podlings.xml (or
give them an inactive flag). With this information clutch can report
projects which do not have sufficient mentors.
Thoughts?
Christian
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 24 March 2013 19:05, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > So sure, let's not force out people who are having a bad month or
> > something, but surely we should only be listing as mentors those that
> > are actually paying some attention to the podling?
>
I don't object to this, I just don't want the IPMC to run an
uncontrolled witch hunt (we've seen two in this last week and frankly it
has been embarrassing).
Having said that I'm not implying Christian intended to provoke the mob. I
believe his intentions were much more inline with the clarification
Upayavira provides.
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> In my opinion there is only a problem if nobody is looking or if the
>> podling community feels they are not getting the support they need.
>>
>> I therefore suggest reaching out to the podling rather than passing
>> judgement on the mentors.
If you start at Apache, how can you know what to expect from a mentor?
>
How about a simple rule, if the communities questions about the ASF are not
being addressed then the mentors are failing.
I would like to think that a case where a single mentor is doing all the
work can be covered by them coming to the IPMC and asking for help.
>
> Your suggestion surely helps, but I think it is just another spice in
> the soup. We should actively look for Mentors who are awol AND ask
> podlings if they feel well supported.
>
Fair enough. Just be wary of that witch hunt potential ;-)
Ross
>
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
> On Monday, 2013-03-25, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>> IMO it's the podlings who need to make sure they have enough mentor
>>> energy available - they are best placed to judge that, and delegating
>>> that to them scales much better than burdening the incubator PMC.
>
>> In total agreement. No one knows better than the podling.
>
> I was never sure how much mentoring our podling was supposed to get.
> And I certainly wouldn't have reported an inactive mentor because
> I had no idea what kind of discussions that would have started.
>
And thats going to be the problem with most poddlings i would guess.
They don't really know what to expect, and, they would be put off by
worry of causing trouble.
I was on an Incubating poddling once which had a couple of not
terribly active mentors, i'm not sure that they read the dev list
regularly. However they were both experienced ASF oldtimers and if you
pinged them for help they jumped in and helped out which on several
occasions proved invaluable (it was a bit of a troubled poddling).
The problem with making some new rule, eg must sign reports, is that
some people will then just make sure they do that without changing the
activeness of their mentoring.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Mar 25, 2013, at 2:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>> ...Simple rule. If mentors don't sign two reports in a row,
>> shepherd checks they are subscribed to the dev list, and then contacts
>> them asking if they still want to be involved. If they don't answer,
>> then the shepherd goes to the podling private list, and tells them that
>> mentor x is not responding - and allows them to act as they wish (most
>> likely seeking an additional mentor)....
>
> That's a lot of work for the shepherd IMO - my proposal to just have
> the podling find out if they have adequate mentoring might be a bit
> extreme, but if we ask for an opinion on that in the podling reports
> we should still be fine, don't you think so?
As a shepherd (like many I missed last time, sorry one of those things), I like looking at a different flock/podling each time. The diversity is very cool.
I look to see if the podling looks healthy and see if the report indicates if they are moving towards graduation and making a release.
In these discussions let's not forget why three mentors are needed and why they should all be IPMC members, this is so that three +1 IPMC release votes are possible.
Simple signs of not enough mentors:
- Cannot get releases passed.
- Cannot get IPMC signoff on Committer and PPMC votes.
>
> It should be relatively easy for the shepherd to check that the
> podling as at least one active mentor, and that mentor should feel
> free to ask for help if they feel they need it.
Yes, reviewing the private and dev lists should give that answer quickly. I would have to review my shepherd reports, but I think that podlings are more likely to have a release, community or infra issue than a mentor issue.
One thing that Flex did was to use a [MENTOR] tag on emails when they wanted our advice. This helped given the huge volume of emails. Of the four mentors, three were active ...
I'm not mentoring at the moment, and won't until I think I have the time. MemoryMap is interesting, but...
Regards,
Dave
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> ...Simple rule. If mentors don't sign two reports in a row,
> shepherd checks they are subscribed to the dev list, and then contacts
> them asking if they still want to be involved. If they don't answer,
> then the shepherd goes to the podling private list, and tells them that
> mentor x is not responding - and allows them to act as they wish (most
> likely seeking an additional mentor)....
That's a lot of work for the shepherd IMO - my proposal to just have
the podling find out if they have adequate mentoring might be a bit
extreme, but if we ask for an opinion on that in the podling reports
we should still be fine, don't you think so?
It should be relatively easy for the shepherd to check that the
podling as at least one active mentor, and that mentor should feel
free to ask for help if they feel they need it.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Exactly. Simple rule. If mentors don't sign two reports in a row,
shepherd checks they are subscribed to the dev list, and then contacts
them asking if they still want to be involved. If they don't answer,
then the shepherd goes to the podling private list, and tells them that
mentor x is not responding - and allows them to act as they wish (most
likely seeking an additional mentor).
The aim is not to strike off inactive mentors, but to ensure that a
podling has enough active mentors.
Having said that, there *are* perks to being a mentor, even an inactive
one. I can say "I mentored project X", and I see myself listed with
karma on projects I mentored, which gives me kudos in the outside world.
I'd personally rather not loose that kudos, it is kinda cool. Yet, do we
want to 'give that' in return for zero activity? Did they really mentor
project X?
Upayavira
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013, at 07:27 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Yeah... the question of how much mentoring is kind of one of those things
> that mentors should advise on.
>
> Hmm... there's a problem.
>
> This is one place that the shepherds really, really can come in handy
> for.
> Likewise, simple hurdles like "all mentors have to sign off every
> report"
> help highlight problems.
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 2013-03-25, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > > bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> IMO it's the podlings who need to make sure they have enough mentor
> > >> energy available - they are best placed to judge that, and delegating
> > >> that to them scales much better than burdening the incubator PMC.
> >
> > > In total agreement. No one knows better than the podling.
> >
> > I was never sure how much mentoring our podling was supposed to get.
> > And I certainly wouldn't have reported an inactive mentor because
> > I had no idea what kind of discussions that would have started.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Matthias
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Yeah... the question of how much mentoring is kind of one of those things
that mentors should advise on.
Hmm... there's a problem.
This is one place that the shepherds really, really can come in handy for.
Likewise, simple hurdles like "all mentors have to sign off every report"
help highlight problems.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
> On Monday, 2013-03-25, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> [...]
> >> IMO it's the podlings who need to make sure they have enough mentor
> >> energy available - they are best placed to judge that, and delegating
> >> that to them scales much better than burdening the incubator PMC.
>
> > In total agreement. No one knows better than the podling.
>
> I was never sure how much mentoring our podling was supposed to get.
> And I certainly wouldn't have reported an inactive mentor because
> I had no idea what kind of discussions that would have started.
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de>.
On Monday, 2013-03-25, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
[...]
>> IMO it's the podlings who need to make sure they have enough mentor
>> energy available - they are best placed to judge that, and delegating
>> that to them scales much better than burdening the incubator PMC.
> In total agreement. No one knows better than the podling.
I was never sure how much mentoring our podling was supposed to get.
And I certainly wouldn't have reported an inactive mentor because
I had no idea what kind of discussions that would have started.
Regards,
Matthias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...I would offer a compromise process. If someone does not even sign off
> the
> > report for two or three months running, send an email to that person,
> > copying general@, asking, politely, if they wish to remain a mentor....
>
> IMO it's the podlings who need to make sure they have enough mentor
> energy available - they are best placed to judge that, and delegating
> that to them scales much better than burdening the incubator PMC.
>
>
In total agreement. No one knows better than the podling.
> We could simply ask the podlings to systematically include in their
> reports a comment about how they are doing in terms of mentors - do
> they feel they are adequately mentored, or should the IPMC help them
> find more active mentors?
>
+1
--
Best Regards,
-- Alex
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...I would offer a compromise process. If someone does not even sign off the
> report for two or three months running, send an email to that person,
> copying general@, asking, politely, if they wish to remain a mentor....
IMO it's the podlings who need to make sure they have enough mentor
energy available - they are best placed to judge that, and delegating
that to them scales much better than burdening the incubator PMC.
We could simply ask the podlings to systematically include in their
reports a comment about how they are doing in terms of mentors - do
they feel they are adequately mentored, or should the IPMC help them
find more active mentors?
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Given some other arguments going on around here, I think that I am shortly
going to have to start suppressing my own opinions and focus on neutral
facilitation. However, I'm going to have a little fling on this topic,
first.
I think that it is a mistake to emphasize the idea that roles convey honor
and distinction and that, on the other hand, removal of roles conveys
dishonor and disrespect. Obviously, there are disrespectful ways to handle
anything, but that is not, in my view, a reason to never remove anyone from
any list. I think that listing a person in a role should mean, first and
foremost, that the person is, in fact, performing the role.
I submit to you all that we list specific individuals as mentors for a
reason. Otherwise, we'd just view it as the collective job of the IPMC to
'mentor' all of the podlings.
Having the mentor listing reflect the realistic time-commitment of the
people on it serves several good purposes, in my opinion. (1) it makes it
clear to everyone when a project needs more mentor help. (2) it makes it
clear to people inside and outside the podling where to go in case of need.
(3) It gives credit where credit is due to people who devote real time and
effort.
We all know that, as volunteers, our effort levels will wax and wane. So
pushing people when they are inactive for a month is probably
counterproductive.
On the other hand, I'll note that we seem to be succeeding in reducing the
average length of incubation, so once someone has left the scene for a few
months, they are at risk of irrelevance.
I would offer a compromise process. If someone does not even sign off the
report for two or three months running, send an email to that person,
copying general@, asking, politely, if they wish to remain a mentor.
In spite of my remarks above, if someone prefers to remain on the list in
spite of their lack of time to do much of anything, I don't mind leaving
them there. It is my belief that, 99% of the time, an email reminder will
either result in activity or an agreement to be removed from the list, so I
see no reason to have an agonizing email thread about the very unlikely
case in which it might be appropriate to remove someone against his or her
wishes.
In any case, the most important thing to do with the mentor activity
evidence is to discover podlings that need more assistance and try to find
it. In this respect I do agree with Ross, even though the above disagrees
with him other respects.
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
Global +1 to what Upayavira said, then:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> So sure, let's not force out people who are having a bad month or
> something, but surely we should only be listing as mentors those that
> are actually paying some attention to the podling?
Actually it would be more respectful to the one who does the work.
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> I'd suggest a different approach, the motivation for this suggestion is
>> that I don't believe having inactive mentors is a problem if there is an
>> active one available. Everyone gets busy occasionally, should we really
>> be
>> kicking them off a podling when they have already expressed interest? At
>> next months report they might be the one who is active. They may have
>> been
>> active in the two months between reports. Etc.
I think it is unlikely that they were active between two reports and
then do not find a way to sign it.
I also meant we would ask them if they are there. They can justify
their absence. If we get not response then we can add an "inactive"
flag to podlings.xml.
>> In my opinion there is only a problem if nobody is looking or if the
>> podling community feels they are not getting the support they need.
>>
>> I therefore suggest reaching out to the podling rather than passing
>> judgement on the mentors.
If you start at Apache, how can you know what to expect from a mentor?
A mentor is (imho) not only there for helping with infra related
matters, he is also there to explain the Apache way. If a mentor helps
with Jira and then goes awol they podling might not know they are
missing something.
Your suggestion surely helps, but I think it is just another spice in
the soup. We should actively look for Mentors who are awol AND ask
podlings if they feel well supported.
I understand people are busy sometimes. But if one signs up for a
task/duty he can also tell others if he is not going to participate.
Its just a 10 second e-mail.
Cheers
Christian
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 March 2013 10:23, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I know at least one podling where 75% of the mentors is awol. We don't
>> > have an oversight on the "awol"-state, just the shepherds do know for
>> > the projects they shepherd.
>> >
>> > We have status reports, which should be signed by all mentors. I
>> > believe reading, verifying and signing a podling report is not so much
>> > work and it is the least a mentor should do.
>> >
>> > My proposal:
>> >
>> > We should contact all Mentors who have not signed a report 2 times in
>> > a row if they are still committed to their role. If we get no response
>> > within a week, we should remove them as a mentor from podlings.xml (or
>> > give them an inactive flag). With this information clutch can report
>> > projects which do not have sufficient mentors.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Christian
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://www.grobmeier.de
>> > https://www.timeandbill.de
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
At Openmeetings we spent some time looking for mentors, and every mentor
really helped at some point.
Upayavira's letter reminds me to say thanks to @Andrus, @Egor and @Ross.
24.03.2013 21:21 пользователь "Upayavira" <uv...@odoko.co.uk> написал:
> I have mentored at least two podlings where I am the only active mentor.
> One had six mentors on the list, but I was the only one actually paying
> any attention. We're not talking about occasional absenteeism, we're
> talking not having participated since the beginning of the podling. One
> podling I note two of the mentors don't even appear to be subscribed to
> the dev list.
>
> I didn't sign up to being the *only* mentor. I'm not convinced that
> having only me as a mentor is best for the project. Fortunately, there's
> another ASF member who watches and chimes in, which I really appreciate.
>
> So sure, let's not force out people who are having a bad month or
> something, but surely we should only be listing as mentors those that
> are actually paying some attention to the podling?
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > I'd suggest a different approach, the motivation for this suggestion is
> > that I don't believe having inactive mentors is a problem if there is an
> > active one available. Everyone gets busy occasionally, should we really
> > be
> > kicking them off a podling when they have already expressed interest? At
> > next months report they might be the one who is active. They may have
> > been
> > active in the two months between reports. Etc.
> >
> > In my opinion there is only a problem if nobody is looking or if the
> > podling community feels they are not getting the support they need.
> >
> > I therefore suggest reaching out to the podling rather than passing
> > judgement on the mentors.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> >
> >
> > On 23 March 2013 10:23, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I know at least one podling where 75% of the mentors is awol. We don't
> > > have an oversight on the "awol"-state, just the shepherds do know for
> > > the projects they shepherd.
> > >
> > > We have status reports, which should be signed by all mentors. I
> > > believe reading, verifying and signing a podling report is not so much
> > > work and it is the least a mentor should do.
> > >
> > > My proposal:
> > >
> > > We should contact all Mentors who have not signed a report 2 times in
> > > a row if they are still committed to their role. If we get no response
> > > within a week, we should remove them as a mentor from podlings.xml (or
> > > give them an inactive flag). With this information clutch can report
> > > projects which do not have sufficient mentors.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Christian
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.grobmeier.de
> > > https://www.timeandbill.de
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> > Programme Leader (Open Development)
> > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
I have mentored at least two podlings where I am the only active mentor.
One had six mentors on the list, but I was the only one actually paying
any attention. We're not talking about occasional absenteeism, we're
talking not having participated since the beginning of the podling. One
podling I note two of the mentors don't even appear to be subscribed to
the dev list.
I didn't sign up to being the *only* mentor. I'm not convinced that
having only me as a mentor is best for the project. Fortunately, there's
another ASF member who watches and chimes in, which I really appreciate.
So sure, let's not force out people who are having a bad month or
something, but surely we should only be listing as mentors those that
are actually paying some attention to the podling?
Upayavira
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I'd suggest a different approach, the motivation for this suggestion is
> that I don't believe having inactive mentors is a problem if there is an
> active one available. Everyone gets busy occasionally, should we really
> be
> kicking them off a podling when they have already expressed interest? At
> next months report they might be the one who is active. They may have
> been
> active in the two months between reports. Etc.
>
> In my opinion there is only a problem if nobody is looking or if the
> podling community feels they are not getting the support they need.
>
> I therefore suggest reaching out to the podling rather than passing
> judgement on the mentors.
>
> Ross
>
>
>
> On 23 March 2013 10:23, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I know at least one podling where 75% of the mentors is awol. We don't
> > have an oversight on the "awol"-state, just the shepherds do know for
> > the projects they shepherd.
> >
> > We have status reports, which should be signed by all mentors. I
> > believe reading, verifying and signing a podling report is not so much
> > work and it is the least a mentor should do.
> >
> > My proposal:
> >
> > We should contact all Mentors who have not signed a report 2 times in
> > a row if they are still committed to their role. If we get no response
> > within a week, we should remove them as a mentor from podlings.xml (or
> > give them an inactive flag). With this information clutch can report
> > projects which do not have sufficient mentors.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > --
> > http://www.grobmeier.de
> > https://www.timeandbill.de
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Identifying and removing inactive mentors
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
I'd suggest a different approach, the motivation for this suggestion is
that I don't believe having inactive mentors is a problem if there is an
active one available. Everyone gets busy occasionally, should we really be
kicking them off a podling when they have already expressed interest? At
next months report they might be the one who is active. They may have been
active in the two months between reports. Etc.
In my opinion there is only a problem if nobody is looking or if the
podling community feels they are not getting the support they need.
I therefore suggest reaching out to the podling rather than passing
judgement on the mentors.
Ross
On 23 March 2013 10:23, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know at least one podling where 75% of the mentors is awol. We don't
> have an oversight on the "awol"-state, just the shepherds do know for
> the projects they shepherd.
>
> We have status reports, which should be signed by all mentors. I
> believe reading, verifying and signing a podling report is not so much
> work and it is the least a mentor should do.
>
> My proposal:
>
> We should contact all Mentors who have not signed a report 2 times in
> a row if they are still committed to their role. If we get no response
> within a week, we should remove them as a mentor from podlings.xml (or
> give them an inactive flag). With this information clutch can report
> projects which do not have sufficient mentors.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Christian
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com