On 21 November 2011 08:42, Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Some time back we moved to having 3 mentors, which had the positive of more >> hands and enough binding votes, but the downside of no single person "on the >> hook" for a podling's reporting and progress towards graduation. >> >> Should we appoint one of the mentors at the start to be the "chair" of the >> PPMC, in the same way as a full project? I would see them as responsible for >> ensuring the podling is reporting, and that all of the mentors are engaged >> and signing off the reports. >> >> As the podling matures, this role could be transitioned to the person who >> will be nominated as the chair of the project after it graduates, if they >> are ready for that. >> >> What do others think? > > I think appointing a chair in the early stages is likely to work > against building a community of peers.
I agree, especially if that "chair" is also a mentor. Mentors are not supposed to *do* only to *guide*. On the other hand, I do think the original point of none of the three mentors being responsible is a problem. > I think that establishing a chair once community has self-organised > would be a good idea. Not before graduation. I have seen, in a number of podlings, that the obvious choice of a chair half way through graduation (for example) is often not the same choice at the end of graduation. Ross --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
