+1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here. A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually develop more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.
While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of natural growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done artificially. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet). > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me explain > why. > > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@ > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all > projects to complete. > > We should not be trying to force rote learning. Every community is > different. > > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more > overhead. Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly > is against what we should be about. I believe that the IPMC should be > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from > the full projects. To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is > fair - but, additional paperwork is not. -- justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
