Hi Jan, On Jan 5, 2015, at 12:18 PM, jan i wrote:
> On 5 January 2015 at 20:06, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','l...@toolazydogs.com');>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part >>>>> that would require us to do something with poddlings put >>>>> on hold. Unless we come up with clear exit criteria for >>>>> this new state -- I don't think we're solving any real problems >>>>> here. >>>> >>>> There’s no silver bullet here, if a podling cannot whip up a mentor it’s >>>> because: >>>> the podling is not popular and should probably be retired anyway, being >>>> put on hold will provide impetus for the podling to seek out a new venue >>>> there are not enough mentors >>>> There is no way to magically solve the latter. >>> >>> >>> You mean popular within the pool of mentors (IPMC), the project can still >>> be popular on several other scales. >> >> I’m not speaking of popularity of mentors; I regret that choice of words. >> I am stating that active and healthy podlings seem to have no trouble >> attracting active mentors. >> >> The converse seems to be true. Unhealthy podlings seem to attract mentors >> who have signed up out of pity and subsequently go MIA. >> > I agree with the last part, I still have to see mentors volunteer for small > active and healthy projects which might not be main road. Of course it > depends on how active and healthy is defined, but as an example my little > project Corinthia barely managed to get 2 mentors, while in the same time > span we got 3 committers. Does Corinthia want another mentor? I've already started lurking on your developer list because I am quite interested. I don't know if I am a committer - yet. You can add my name as a Mentor if the PPMC wants. > >> >> Before anyone replies, I understand this is not a hard and fast rule but >> an imperfect qualitative observation on my part. >> >> Anyway, active and responsible mentors will eventually get to all podlings. >> >>> I might lack experience, but why do more active mentors guarantee that >> the >>> podling will be a better TLP ? >> >> I’m not sure who’s making that assertion. >> > Well its because I cannot see why a podling need more than 1 active mentor > at all times....having multiple is fine, to cover each other, but it should > not take more than 1 mentor to learn a podling, what it needs to > understand. The suggestion implicit says 2 mentors is the minimum needed > for at podling to become a successful TLP. Here are just a few reasons a podling needs multiple Mentors: - Mentors need vacations too. - Mentors have day jobs, sometimes these have stretches with months of 12-16 hour days. > > >> >>> We try to solve the problem of mentors not being active but adding more >>> volume. I don't believe that is the right cure. >> >> We’re not adding volume. The volume is already there. We’re just making >> the state of affairs more explicit and transparent and adding culpability >> for MIA mentors. >> > Do we have a rule today that a podling needs at least 2 active mentors (if > we have that, then we would not have a problem with sign offs, or a lot of > dead podlings), at least I have not seen it....that is what I mean by > adding volume. > > If just 1 mentor is active and sign off the reports, then I do not see the > problem. > > > >> >>> I do agree with bernard that it is the podling that should ask for >>> help....but the IPMC should solve it., >> >> Yes, it should help solve problems but if there are no mentors available >> there are no mentors available. >> > Then the IPMC should not have accepted the podling in the first place! > > It is simply not fair to make the life of a podling, depending on whether > or not we have mentors available (REMARK after accepting the proposal) ! If > the podling have a healthy community and are active, we cannot and should > not close it down, just because we have a mentor problem. > > To me telling a podling it cannot grow its community nor make releases, is > the same as closing it down. There can be lots of reasons mentors might not be engaged. Nothing may be happening in the podling community. I can think of an example - ODF Toolkit. Best Regards, Dave > > rgds > jan i. > > > > >> >> >> Regards, >> Alan >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
