No, I don't mean to blame the mentors... It is a hard job, mostly uncelebrated and thankless and the 1st place people point to when problems arise.
Also, in general, most mentors are those who suffer from volunteeritis and tend to bite off more than they can chew. But the reality is that they have signed up and that the podling does need them and depend on them. There is no shame in saying "I need to resign as mentor... I just don't have the time anymore". Agreed, BTW, that the Champion role needs to be really emphasized... > On Aug 12, 2019, at 1:22 PM, Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Aug 12, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:20 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> ... >>>> This does NOT mean that the IPMC should be gatekeepers though... Just as >>>> PMC chairs are the "eyes and ears of the board", mentors are the "eyes and >>>> ears of the IPMC". The IPMC "vote" should be little more than a formality. >>>> IMO, if mentors are IPMC members, and there are at least 3 binding votes on >>>> the podling list, and the mentors are acting as IPMC members when they >>>> vote, then any other additional vote in the IPMC is not required... in >>>> essence, consider it like extending the vote for a lazy consensus, so to >>>> speak: >>>> >>>> >>>> "The Apache Podling Foo has voted on releasing Foo 1.2.2 (url and >>>> pointers here). We have 3 (or more) binding votes from mentors. We are >>>> giving the IPMC and additional 72 hours to vote on said release." >>>> >>> >>> >>> This is good in theory, but as Justin has pointed out, 90% of podling >>> releases don't have enough mentor votes to follow this path. >>> >>> The 10% that do have enough votes can easily follow this process. >> >> Then the ones that don't have enough mentors still require the 3 +1 binding >> votes. The idea is that if the podling already has it, then the IPMC "vote" >> is more procedural than anything else. If they don't, then either the >> mentors need to step up or the IPMC fills in the gap. >> >> The goal is to avoid having the Incubator be a gate-keeper. > > You state here the paradox if the podling does not have enough engaged > mentors then the IPMC is the effective gateway. > > FWIW - there are currently 47 Podlings[1] and 85 Mentors. [2] There are > several mentors who mentor 4-6 podlings. I’ve done the analysis before, but > it breaks down to about half the mentors having only a single Podling and a > quarter with only two. > > Also, let’s not blame the mentors as a lot of times a podling has trouble > establishing themselves and the mentors move on for various reasons. > Typically mentors are all volunteers. (That some are paid by a third party is > perfectly fine.) > > Do we need more mentors? Sure. We do have over 10% of the membership > mentoring and up to 30% on the IPMC. I sent a request to members@ some six > months ago and I think we got two or three. > > Regards, > Dave > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/clutch/#clutch > <http://incubator.apache.org/clutch/#clutch> > [2] http://incubator.apache.org/clutch/#mentors > <http://incubator.apache.org/clutch/#mentors> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> <mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> <mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > <mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > <mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org>
