Shepherd Shortage for December Report

["P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>]

It looks like there’s a pretty big shortage of shepherds for this month’s report. Is that a concern?

If it is, and I can find time (no guarantees), I may be able to take on some additional podlings for this month.

If I were to do that what would be the process? Manually assign myself in the wiki page? Would I need to change shepherd_assignments.json as well?

-Taylor

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

[Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>]

Hi,

> P.S.: If the the non-member route was how Justin came to the IPMC, then we need to retain or replace such a route.

Yep it was, but I am now a member because of that.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

["P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>]

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Then I'd say let it die. My only concern is that that it offers a way for non-members an entry path to the ipmc. If we eliminate it, there should be an alternative for new IPMC candidates to show interest and demonstrate merit.
> 
> I have that concern as well, as that’s how I come to be on the IPMC. But I assume just showing up and helping out here would be a valid alternative.

I would hope so. But sometimes just showing up and helping out isn't enough to register with us (IPMC) that an individual would like to get involved and join the IPMC if they are not a member. In that sense, we might be missing out.

A number of ASF projects try to lower the barrier to entry by tagging issues as "newbie," or something similar. Maybe something like that for the incubator wouldn't hurt -- an answer to "Hey, I'd really like to get involved with the incubator. What can I do to help?" -- With a clear answer.

-Taylor

P.S.: If the the non-member route was how Justin came to the IPMC, then we need to retain or replace such a route. IMO, he is close to the gold standard for vetting releases, and has caught many things that I (or many TLPs for that matter) would have missed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

[Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>]

Hi,

> Then I'd say let it die. My only concern is that that it offers a way for non-members an entry path to the ipmc. If we eliminate it, there should be an alternative for new IPMC candidates to show interest and demonstrate merit.

I have that concern as well, as that’s how I come to be on the IPMC. But I assume just showing up and helping out here would be a valid alternative.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

["P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>]

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:21 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's not a concern -- it's a blessing. The shepherd institution needs to die.
>> 
>> Then I'd say let it die. My only concern is that that it offers a way for non-members an
>> entry path to the ipmc. If we eliminate it, there should be an alternative for new IPMC
>> candidates to show interest and demonstrate merit.
> 
> FWIW: I feel like there's plenty of way to generate that kind of merit: release
> reviews, report reviews, helping on podling MLs.
> 
>>> There's been a shepherd shortage for years. What happened this month
>>> is that I took a bunch of people who were effectively inactive out of
>>> the shepherd rolls, so their absence is more obvious at the top of the
>>> report.
>>> 
>>> The expectation that it is shepherds who review and comment on podling
>>> reports, rather than Mentors, is harmful.
>> 
>> That seems like a problem with documentation of the shepherd role -- and varying degrees of individual interpretations.
>> 
>> I see a lot of podlings with deadbeat mentors (e.g. Ones that offer to mentor a proposal,
>> then go dark until graduation and suddenly reappear). I think we need a way to address
>> that. If mentors are absent, what's the fallback if there are no shepherds?
>> Is it the IPMC self-policing such things?
> 
> I absolutely agree with you here. But IPMC has been through this conversation
> before and we all... well I guess we agreed to disagree. Even if we agree on
> trusting the mentors 100% to stay engaged, there's still an issue of mentors
> going "native" within a project. There *has* to be an independent view point
> injected. That's what shepherd role is to me. Somebody who'd have time
> to actually poke around not just read the report.
> 

What about initiating a DISCUSS thread when the report reminders go out that serves as a reminder to mentors/IPMC that they should weigh in on any issues (or non-issues) that they may be concerned about?

I have some concerns (that may or may not be valid), with zero or more podlings in the current report list. If I'm not a shepherd or mentor, what's the best way to make those concerns known to the greater IPMC?

> Thanks,
> Roman.

-Taylor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

[Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:21 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's not a concern -- it's a blessing. The shepherd institution needs to die.
>
> Then I'd say let it die. My only concern is that that it offers a way for non-members an
> entry path to the ipmc. If we eliminate it, there should be an alternative for new IPMC
> candidates to show interest and demonstrate merit.

FWIW: I feel like there's plenty of way to generate that kind of merit: release
reviews, report reviews, helping on podling MLs.

>> There's been a shepherd shortage for years. What happened this month
>> is that I took a bunch of people who were effectively inactive out of
>> the shepherd rolls, so their absence is more obvious at the top of the
>> report.
>>
>> The expectation that it is shepherds who review and comment on podling
>> reports, rather than Mentors, is harmful.
>
> That seems like a problem with documentation of the shepherd role -- and varying degrees of individual interpretations.
>
> I see a lot of podlings with deadbeat mentors (e.g. Ones that offer to mentor a proposal,
> then go dark until graduation and suddenly reappear). I think we need a way to address
> that. If mentors are absent, what's the fallback if there are no shepherds?
> Is it the IPMC self-policing such things?

I absolutely agree with you here. But IPMC has been through this conversation
before and we all... well I guess we agreed to disagree. Even if we agree on
trusting the mentors 100% to stay engaged, there's still an issue of mentors
going "native" within a project. There *has* to be an independent view point
injected. That's what shepherd role is to me. Somebody who'd have time
to actually poke around not just read the report.

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

["P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>]

to;dr;: I bring up some points below that Marvin already addressed well later in his reply. In short, I still think we need a way to address absentee mentors that doesn't overburden the report manager. 

I'm relatively new to the ipmc, so forgive me up front if I'm opening up old wounds... I know there have been related threads.

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> 
> It's not a concern -- it's a blessing. The shepherd institution needs to die.

Then I'd say let it die. My only concern is that that it offers a way for non-members an entry path to the ipmc. If we eliminate it, there should be an alternative for new IPMC candidates to show interest and demonstrate merit.

> 
> There's been a shepherd shortage for years. What happened this month
> is that I took a bunch of people who were effectively inactive out of
> the shepherd rolls, so their absence is more obvious at the top of the
> report.
> 
> The expectation that it is shepherds who review and comment on podling
> reports, rather than Mentors, is harmful.

That seems like a problem with documentation of the shepherd role -- and varying degrees of individual interpretations.

I see a lot of podlings with deadbeat mentors (e.g. Ones that offer to mentor a proposal, then go dark until graduation and suddenly reappear). I think we need a way to address that. If mentors are absent, what's the fallback if there are no shepherds? Is it the IPMC self-policing such things?

I'd like to say just change the text from "shepherd/mentor notes" to "IPMC/mentor notes", but that could open up a whole can of worms.

> 
> Furthermore, shepherds do not fulfill their original purpose of
> preventing problem podings from falling through the cracks.  That
> problem is more effectively addressed by having the Report Manager
> flag podlings who have failed to turn in a signed-off report for 2
> months running.
> 

Excellent point.  Checking the box is easy. Digging into mailing lists to see if mentors are actually engaged is a different story, and is a lot of work for the report manager (if that's who is responsible for it).

> For those who value cross-podling feedback, the best opportunity for
> that is to comment on the DRAFT report, spawning rich conversations on
> general@incubator.  I'll be sending out that DRAFT next Monday.
> 

That seems like a great forum for such discussions, and provides a way for non-ASF members to show involvement in the incubator.

There could still be cases where podlings (or their mentors) fall through the cracks, but I would hope that such cases are eventually caught and corrected.

> Marvin Humphrey

-Taylor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

[Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks like there’s a pretty big shortage of shepherds for this month’s report. Is that a concern?

It's not a concern -- it's a blessing. The shepherd institution needs to die.

There's been a shepherd shortage for years. What happened this month
is that I took a bunch of people who were effectively inactive out of
the shepherd rolls, so their absence is more obvious at the top of the
report.

The expectation that it is shepherds who review and comment on podling
reports, rather than Mentors, is harmful.

Furthermore, shepherds do not fulfill their original purpose of
preventing problem podings from falling through the cracks.  That
problem is more effectively addressed by having the Report Manager
flag podlings who have failed to turn in a signed-off report for 2
months running.

For those who value cross-podling feedback, the best opportunity for
that is to comment on the DRAFT report, spawning rich conversations on
general@incubator.  I'll be sending out that DRAFT next Monday.

Marvin Humphrey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org