Wow quite a thread.
+1 to the concept that the Champion is responsible for ensuring the new
PPMC has a mentor who agrees to act as acting chair for the project.
+1 to having a chair for PPMCs, to help ensure that reports are done in
a timely and appropriate fashion.
+1 to having the acting chair start as a mentor (i.e. a Member). Make
having the mentors and PPMC agree on a future acting chair as one of the
steps towards graduation (hence, that acting chair becomes the chair of
the eventual TLP)
+1 to what Joe is saying below. The Incubator needs to do a far better
job both supporting it's projects (better mentors, better IPMC
oversight), as well as managing itself (more efficient and useful
reports to the board, website documentation).
We have some mentors who do an amazing job, and some IPMC members who
help with real work in a wide variety of areas. We need to ensure that
all of the mentors and IPMC step up - or at least ensure that the work
is better organized within the IPMC to help ensure that all our podlings
get appropriate guidance on their journey.
- Shane
On 2011-11-21 8:03 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
To me a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the reports are
misdirected- instead of informing the board about the activities of
the IPMC, it tells them about the podling's activities, which doesn't
scale properly.
We should be reporting to the board about OUR work, not the work of
the podlings. Podlings should only be brought in for a few specific
examplesto mention. That's the first thing to correct.
Once we start reporting about the crap WE did, then we can start figuring
out all the crap that's not getting done by mentors who aren't participating.
It doesn't matter that there are lots of well-intentioned but otherwise useless
people mentoring projects, the fact is that they only harm the org by not
prodding
these projects along a graduation path or funneling them towards the exit door.
Part
of how they manage to get away with that is that we pretend its important to a
podling
to create a sustainable community around itself, which is something most of them
have no control over. That is the reason for the long bouts of stalling on many
levels, we need to do the sane thing and drop that bit of pretense, and yes even
graduating projects that haven't necessarily met the silly developer diversity
requirements- rules are not appropriate here, only very fuzzy benchmarks.
WE are responsible for evaluating the progress of our podlings, ALL of them, and
clutch can help us do that at a basic level as a group. But we need to figure
out,
quickly, how to change the review process for podling reports in a scalable way
without us all being burnt out all at once. I think the review needs to take
place
over a few days, on the podling's own dev lists, by 3 IPMC members actively
voting
on them. We can still collate the podling reports on the wiki, but the report
we
hand to the board should come from us, and it should be the product of those
reviews.
We can do this wiki-style if we want to, or just have Noel poll this list for
"mentor
comments" to be included in the report. A quick scan of the podling lists wrt
those
report votes should be sufficient to determine if a podling needs more IPMC
representation,
and can be done by Noel or collectively if we'd like to start doing more
cross-checking.
WDYT?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
