Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Nov 22, 2011 1:40 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: > >
... > +1 to what Joe is saying below. The Incubator needs to do a far better job both supporting it's projects (better mentors, better IPMC oversight), as well as managing itself (more efficient and useful reports to the board, website documentation). > I agree with this, however we need to define "better mentors, better IPMC oversight". This thread, has gone some way to defining the later but the former is much harder. Being a mentor is a very delicate balance between observing and guiding. Where that balance should be is greatly dependent on the community being mentored. > > On 2011-11-21 8:03 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> >> To me a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the reports are >> misdirected- instead of informing the board about the activities of >> the IPMC, it tells them about the podling's activities, which doesn't >> scale properly. >> >> We should be reporting to the board about OUR work, not the work of >> the podlings. Podlings should only be brought in for a few specific >> examplesto mention. That's the first thing to correct. >> >> >> Once we start reporting about the crap WE did, then we can start figuring >> out all the crap that's not getting done by mentors who aren't participating. >> It doesn't matter that there are lots of well-intentioned but otherwise useless >> people mentoring projects, the fact is that they only harm the org by not prodding >> these projects along a graduation path or funneling them towards the exit door. Part >> of how they manage to get away with that is that we pretend its important to a podling >> to create a sustainable community around itself, which is something most of them >> have no control over. That is the reason for the long bouts of stalling on many >> levels, we need to do the sane thing and drop that bit of pretense, and yes even >> graduating projects that haven't necessarily met the silly developer diversity >> requirements- rules are not appropriate here, only very fuzzy benchmarks. >> >> WE are responsible for evaluating the progress of our podlings, ALL of them, and >> clutch can help us do that at a basic level as a group. But we need to figure out, >> quickly, how to change the review process for podling reports in a scalable way >> without us all being burnt out all at once. I think the review needs to take place >> over a few days, on the podling's own dev lists, by 3 IPMC members actively voting >> on them. We can still collate the podling reports on the wiki, but the report we >> hand to the board should come from us, and it should be the product of those reviews. >> We can do this wiki-style if we want to, or just have Noel poll this list for "mentor >> comments" to be included in the report. A quick scan of the podling lists wrt those >> report votes should be sufficient to determine if a podling needs more IPMC representation, >> and can be done by Noel or collectively if we'd like to start doing more cross-checking. >> >> >> WDYT? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
