On 3/13/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -1. +1 to encourage 3+ to mentor, but it's not worth having folks > > step up to mentor a project simply because 'they need three' - > > quoting Justin's thoughts - with which I wholeheartedly agree. We > > don't need body counts, we need dedicated mentors. > > And we need enough for some objectivity, too. One mentor is > not enough, IMHO -- insufficient oversight.
If an ASF member says that they are going to be the Mentor, then I fully expect them to perform the oversight responsibilities impartially - and if they say that they can do it by themselves, then I'll believe that until proven otherwise. We're talking about a group of people who have distinguished themselves over a long period of time as knowing how to participate in an open-source project. Now, I have no problem with recommending or encouraging multiple mentors - but if we have a member who says that project Foo is a great idea and no one else is inclined to mentor it, I don't think it should be the reason to decline the podling. For stdcxx, I think it's great that we have two mentors: myself and Bill can keep an eye on things. It eases the burden significiantly on the two of us. However, I just don't think we should make multiple mentors mandatory because this argument conflates the problem with mentors not fulfilling their duties. If a Mentor isn't being responsive, then that's a different story entirely. However, I'm willing to give ASF members the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're getting into. -- justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
