On 12/24/14, 2:43 AM, "Upayavira" <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>But if someone sees mentorship as some kind of status, and you politely >ask them to quit as a mentor through complete inactivity, the polite >approach might not yield results given their attachment to the apparent >status. > >In the end, in such scenarios, it'll take an impartial rule to resolve >that sort of situation. IMO, mentors can “go bad” not just for inactivity. If you try to put in a minimum activity rule, some mentor can just +1 everything or hastily reply without fully understanding issues and waste people’s time. At the formation of a podling, the new PPMC members simply should be given instructions on when and how to “tolerate” a bad mentor, and when and how to seek action from the IPMC. Flex started off with 4 mentors but one became inactive. With 3 good mentors, the 4th being inactive had no effect and could essentially be ignored. Should that have been reported somewhere? Certainly it should be in the quarterly reports if it is causing a problem (after polite requests to engage the mentors fail). It could be added to the graduation proposal. We simply did not credit the inactive mentor on the team page on the website. -Alex
