I think that it would be good for the diversity team to consider how a PMC might approach the Outreachy Mentor discussion.
Someone in the PMC needs to be willing and able to provide mentorship. This is pretty clear from the materials already provided. The PMC needs to be aware and supportive of the Mentor and subsequent mentorship. What that means in practical terms is that the PMC thinks that the mentorship will produce something meaningful, and if the mentorship creates a useful result, the PMC will support committers to incorporate the product of the mentorship in a useful way. That is, will accept pull requests/patches from the mentorship. The above is how PMCs usually operate. Someone proposes an idea for a new feature/ doc/ test/ web site/ etc and socializes it on the dev list. Discussion ensues. The proposer eventually is satisfied that the idea has merit and announces the result on the dev list. The exact mechanism by which a PMC accepts an idea to be incorporated into the project is very PMC-specific. But I'd say that The Apache Way would at minimum require a discussion on the dev list about the proposed Mentor and the idea to be implemented by the mentorship. Circling back to the original question: Perhaps we can clarify item 4 " • Get consensus from your project’s PMC about the previous points and move to the next step. This would usually involve a discussion on the dev list about the proposed project, resulting in lazy consensus to proceed." Regards, Craig > On Aug 23, 2019, at 4:28 AM, Shane Curcuru <[email protected]> wrote: > > Awasum Yannick wrote on 2019-8-23 2:36AM EDT: >> Hi. >> >> Anyone on the PMC just needs to confirm that the mentor/committer has the >> support and backing of the PMC to do Outreachy. > > Putting it in Apache terms, there are two questions Awasum is asking > above, which each need some thought: > > - Is the PMC aware, and providing at least Lazy Consensus that they > don't mind if the volunteer mentor is working with Outreachy on their > project? That should be pretty easy, unless the PMC has specific > concerns about the mentor's behavior. > > This is required IMO, and we could make the doc more clear by specifying > lazy consensus [1]. (OK, that part is pretty easy) > > - Are other PMC members committing to support and actively assist the > mentor in their work on Outreachy? I.e. not just regular PMC work of > reviewing patches in general, but are (at least some) other PMC members > willing to step up as backup mentor if the volunteer mentor is away > temporarily? > > This is a much more complicated question. It all depends on the > volunteer mentor's time and reliability to start with. It feels like > this is a key question for Apache projects and Outreachy: does Outreachy > expect the *whole* project leadership to be active (in some way) at > helping the intern, or just the specific named volunteer mentor(s)? > > -- > > - Shane > Director & Member > The Apache Software Foundation > > > [1] https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html > >> This is just to make sure a mentor is not rogue and to avoid confusion in >> case a mentor is not able to attend to an intern, then the PMC will be able >> to step in and replace that committer. (Just one instance) >> >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 02:59 Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I have a couple people waiting for "PMC consensus" based on item 4 from >>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDI/2019/08/19/Seeking+volunteer+mentors+from+all+Apache+projects+to+help+mentor+under-represented+contributors >>> . >>> >>> I am not really sure what this entails, or whether the PMC really needs to >>> approve anything. Is there something specific in mind? (apologies if I >>> missed the thread or FAQ and failed to find the info) >>> >>> Kenn >>> >> > Craig L Russell [email protected]
