On 5 October 2011 12:23, Ulrich Stärk <u...@spielviel.de> wrote: > On 05.10.2011 11:48, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Ulrich Stärk <u...@spielviel.de> wrote: >>> ...In the past we allowed every committer to be a GSoC mentor. This is only >>> problematic with past >>> students that still have Apache accounts but have never been voted in as >>> committers. So we either >>> have to restrict mentors to be PMC members or PMC-approved or make sure >>> that we can identify >>> temporary accounts created for GSoC students. I personally favor the second >>> option... >> I agree with the need to make sure temporary accounts don't stick around. >> >> OTOH I think asking PMCs to approve their mentors would be good, if >> only to make sure each PMC is aware of which of their committers are >> mentors. This could be a simple lazy consensus approval, where we ask >> each mentor to inform their PMC's private list, telling them to bark >> if they disagree, and copy that message to our private GSoC mentors >> list. >> >> -Bertrand > > A good idea but I doubt that a lazy concensus will effectively prevent > non-committers from becoming > mentors. Some PMC members simply won't care about GSoC and don't disagree, > others might think "hey > great, a volunteer" without knowing our policies on who may become a mentor. > While it seems like a > good idea to involve the PMCs some more I think that we should, in addition, > require accounts > created for students to be marked as such.
So we make it a policy that the PMC is responsible for ensuring that the mentor is an appropriate mentor and that they support the application. We give the mentor a template email including these details to send to the PMC and we use the board process of "ack + 72 hours". Not quite lazy consensus but not significant work for anyone. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
