[DISCUSS] Absent mentors

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
37 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Julian Hyde-3
The incubator has an ongoing problem with lack of mentor engagement. Mentors are a crucial component of the incubation process. Incubation is the time when projects learn the Apache Way, and they cannot learn in a vacuum.

I’d like to discuss possible solutions to this problem. I’d like to hear from both podlings (PPMC members) and from IPMC members.

(By the way, it’s not just a problem for podlings. As a mentor, I am demoralized when I feel my co-mentors are not pulling their weight, and I get a little closer to burn-out.)

How to detect deadbeat mentors? One solution that has been discussed before is counting mentor sign-offs on podlings’ quarterly reports. Any project that received one or two sign-offs was deemed to be doing just fine. This is an imperfect metric.

Another remedy is to require podlings to be proactive: if they are not receiving adequate supervision, they should reach out to the IPMC and demand a change in mentors. The problem is, podlings have by definition not been through incubation before, so do not know what to expect. They don’t want to rock the boat.

I propose another solution. Let’s add a question to the podling report template, as follows:

> Have your mentors been helpful and responsive? If not, describe what advice or help
> you needed, or need:

It isn't too onerous for the podling, and only embarrasses mentors who deserve to be embarrassed.

What to do about deadbeat mentors? The current thinking is that every project should have three mentors, and if at least one of them is active, that’s OK. I think that the “rule of 3” actually makes the problem worse. It’s difficult to find three motivated individuals (or find enough work for them to do), so a podling will inevitably have one or two inactive mentors. It has become the norm that most mentors are inactive.

I propose that we get rid of the rule of 3. If mentors are not active, they should be encouraged to step down, and if they don’t, the IPMC should remove them. If this leaves the podling with zero or one mentors, then IPMC can step in and appoint new mentors. A podling with two active mentors is probably doing just fine.

Is this problem as serious as I think it is? Would my proposed solutions help?

Julian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Ted Dunning
I think the problem is serious. I also think that signoff rate is a better
metric in practice than it seems it would be.

Adding the additional metric seems like a small step that could help.

Being aggressive about removing non-mentors is a very good idea. It is best
if mentors remove themselves, but it is imperative that the incubator has a
realistic idea about how many mentors there really are.



On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 17:20 Julian Hyde <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The incubator has an ongoing problem with lack of mentor engagement.
> Mentors are a crucial component of the incubation process. Incubation is
> the time when projects learn the Apache Way, and they cannot learn in a
> vacuum.
>
> I’d like to discuss possible solutions to this problem. I’d like to hear
> from both podlings (PPMC members) and from IPMC members.
>
> (By the way, it’s not just a problem for podlings. As a mentor, I am
> demoralized when I feel my co-mentors are not pulling their weight, and I
> get a little closer to burn-out.)
>
> How to detect deadbeat mentors? One solution that has been discussed
> before is counting mentor sign-offs on podlings’ quarterly reports. Any
> project that received one or two sign-offs was deemed to be doing just
> fine. This is an imperfect metric.
>
> Another remedy is to require podlings to be proactive: if they are not
> receiving adequate supervision, they should reach out to the IPMC and
> demand a change in mentors. The problem is, podlings have by definition not
> been through incubation before, so do not know what to expect. They don’t
> want to rock the boat.
>
> I propose another solution. Let’s add a question to the podling report
> template, as follows:
>
> > Have your mentors been helpful and responsive? If not, describe what
> advice or help
> > you needed, or need:
>
> It isn't too onerous for the podling, and only embarrasses mentors who
> deserve to be embarrassed.
>
> What to do about deadbeat mentors? The current thinking is that every
> project should have three mentors, and if at least one of them is active,
> that’s OK. I think that the “rule of 3” actually makes the problem worse.
> It’s difficult to find three motivated individuals (or find enough work for
> them to do), so a podling will inevitably have one or two inactive mentors.
> It has become the norm that most mentors are inactive.
>
> I propose that we get rid of the rule of 3. If mentors are not active,
> they should be encouraged to step down, and if they don’t, the IPMC should
> remove them. If this leaves the podling with zero or one mentors, then IPMC
> can step in and appoint new mentors. A podling with two active mentors is
> probably doing just fine.
>
> Is this problem as serious as I think it is? Would my proposed solutions
> help?
>
> Julian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Dave Fisher-5
Hi -

Inline - responses to both.

> On Mar 28, 2018, at 4:15 PM, Ted Dunning <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I think the problem is serious. I also think that signoff rate is a better
> metric in practice than it seems it would be.

I agree that it is quite serious.

>
> Adding the additional metric seems like a small step that could help.
>
> Being aggressive about removing non-mentors is a very good idea. It is best
> if mentors remove themselves, but it is imperative that the incubator has a
> realistic idea about how many mentors there really are.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 17:20 Julian Hyde <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The incubator has an ongoing problem with lack of mentor engagement.
>> Mentors are a crucial component of the incubation process. Incubation is
>> the time when projects learn the Apache Way, and they cannot learn in a
>> vacuum.
>>
>> I’d like to discuss possible solutions to this problem. I’d like to hear
>> from both podlings (PPMC members) and from IPMC members.
>>
>> (By the way, it’s not just a problem for podlings. As a mentor, I am
>> demoralized when I feel my co-mentors are not pulling their weight, and I
>> get a little closer to burn-out.)
>>
>> How to detect deadbeat mentors? One solution that has been discussed
>> before is counting mentor sign-offs on podlings’ quarterly reports. Any
>> project that received one or two sign-offs was deemed to be doing just
>> fine. This is an imperfect metric.
Sign-off means that Mentors are doing the least they can do which is better than nothing.

>>
>> Another remedy is to require podlings to be proactive: if they are not
>> receiving adequate supervision, they should reach out to the IPMC and
>> demand a change in mentors. The problem is, podlings have by definition not
>> been through incubation before, so do not know what to expect. They don’t
>> want to rock the boat.
>>
>> I propose another solution. Let’s add a question to the podling report
>> template, as follows:
>>
>>> Have your mentors been helpful and responsive? If not, describe what
>> advice or help
>>> you needed, or need:
>>
>> It isn't too onerous for the podling, and only embarrasses mentors who
>> deserve to be embarrassed.
Mentors need to be careful of their workload. Having the correct mentors for the community is also important. What I mean about correct will be below.

>>
>> What to do about deadbeat mentors? The current thinking is that every
>> project should have three mentors, and if at least one of them is active,
>> that’s OK. I think that the “rule of 3” actually makes the problem worse.
>> It’s difficult to find three motivated individuals (or find enough work for
>> them to do), so a podling will inevitably have one or two inactive mentors.
>> It has become the norm that most mentors are inactive.

The rule of 3 was so that there were enough Mentors to provide the 3 +1 (Binding Votes) before we get to the IPMC Vote. Thankfully we have a few experts on the IPMC who are doing the required Voting and releases aren’t getting held up.


>>
>> I propose that we get rid of the rule of 3. If mentors are not active,
>> they should be encouraged to step down, and if they don’t, the IPMC should
>> remove them. If this leaves the podling with zero or one mentors, then IPMC
>> can step in and appoint new mentors. A podling with two active mentors is
>> probably doing just fine.

We really need to have the correct Mentors. I feel uncomfortable as one of only two mentors on Daffodil. It is an experiment of having Two.

>>
>> Is this problem as serious as I think it is? Would my proposed solutions
>> help?

I think that we need to also discuss what voting +1 to accept a podling should mean. The value currently is that everyone just +1s because the podling is “cool”.

I think we should discuss these ideas:

(1) Adding more questions to the podling:
- about the number of dependencies. If a lot then we want Mentors who like that part of the process.
- about any registered trademarks. If so then a Mentor with trademark experience is needed.

(2) Think about whether a +1 (binding) VOTE means the IPMC member is willing to Mentor. If we can’t get enough Mentors then we can’t accept a podling.

Regards,
Dave


>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Roman Shaposhnik
In reply to this post by Ted Dunning
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Ted Dunning <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think the problem is serious. I also think that signoff rate is a better
> metric in practice than it seems it would be.

That problem is indeed pretty serious and also pretty chronic.

As for the metric -- I really think that using mentor turnout on release
voting threads will serve us well.

> Adding the additional metric seems like a small step that could help.
>
> Being aggressive about removing non-mentors is a very good idea. It is best
> if mentors remove themselves, but it is imperative that the incubator has a
> realistic idea about how many mentors there really are.

Big +1 on the above. Perhaps if we:
   1. get a clear indication on release vote turnout (as part of
Incubator report)
   2. add to it the sign-off turnout

We can start at least nagging unresponsive mentors to begin
with and if behaviour doesn't improve -- suggest that podlings
start looking for a replacement.

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
In reply to this post by Julian Hyde-3
That's a fair concern.

I think that the podling should mention in podling report if they need help from
mentors and they don't have it (because the mentor is not active).

Regards
JB

On 03/29/2018 12:20 AM, Julian Hyde wrote:

> The incubator has an ongoing problem with lack of mentor engagement. Mentors are a crucial component of the incubation process. Incubation is the time when projects learn the Apache Way, and they cannot learn in a vacuum.
>
> I’d like to discuss possible solutions to this problem. I’d like to hear from both podlings (PPMC members) and from IPMC members.
>
> (By the way, it’s not just a problem for podlings. As a mentor, I am demoralized when I feel my co-mentors are not pulling their weight, and I get a little closer to burn-out.)
>
> How to detect deadbeat mentors? One solution that has been discussed before is counting mentor sign-offs on podlings’ quarterly reports. Any project that received one or two sign-offs was deemed to be doing just fine. This is an imperfect metric.
>
> Another remedy is to require podlings to be proactive: if they are not receiving adequate supervision, they should reach out to the IPMC and demand a change in mentors. The problem is, podlings have by definition not been through incubation before, so do not know what to expect. They don’t want to rock the boat.
>
> I propose another solution. Let’s add a question to the podling report template, as follows:
>
>> Have your mentors been helpful and responsive? If not, describe what advice or help
>> you needed, or need:
>
> It isn't too onerous for the podling, and only embarrasses mentors who deserve to be embarrassed.
>
> What to do about deadbeat mentors? The current thinking is that every project should have three mentors, and if at least one of them is active, that’s OK. I think that the “rule of 3” actually makes the problem worse. It’s difficult to find three motivated individuals (or find enough work for them to do), so a podling will inevitably have one or two inactive mentors. It has become the norm that most mentors are inactive.
>
> I propose that we get rid of the rule of 3. If mentors are not active, they should be encouraged to step down, and if they don’t, the IPMC should remove them. If this leaves the podling with zero or one mentors, then IPMC can step in and appoint new mentors. A podling with two active mentors is probably doing just fine.
>
> Is this problem as serious as I think it is? Would my proposed solutions help?
>
> Julian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[hidden email]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Sid Anand
Thanks for raising this Julian.

I agree with your take on this situation and with your proposals.
-s (Sid)

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> That's a fair concern.
>
> I think that the podling should mention in podling report if they need
> help from
> mentors and they don't have it (because the mentor is not active).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 03/29/2018 12:20 AM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > The incubator has an ongoing problem with lack of mentor engagement.
> Mentors are a crucial component of the incubation process. Incubation is
> the time when projects learn the Apache Way, and they cannot learn in a
> vacuum.
> >
> > I’d like to discuss possible solutions to this problem. I’d like to hear
> from both podlings (PPMC members) and from IPMC members.
> >
> > (By the way, it’s not just a problem for podlings. As a mentor, I am
> demoralized when I feel my co-mentors are not pulling their weight, and I
> get a little closer to burn-out.)
> >
> > How to detect deadbeat mentors? One solution that has been discussed
> before is counting mentor sign-offs on podlings’ quarterly reports. Any
> project that received one or two sign-offs was deemed to be doing just
> fine. This is an imperfect metric.
> >
> > Another remedy is to require podlings to be proactive: if they are not
> receiving adequate supervision, they should reach out to the IPMC and
> demand a change in mentors. The problem is, podlings have by definition not
> been through incubation before, so do not know what to expect. They don’t
> want to rock the boat.
> >
> > I propose another solution. Let’s add a question to the podling report
> template, as follows:
> >
> >> Have your mentors been helpful and responsive? If not, describe what
> advice or help
> >> you needed, or need:
> >
> > It isn't too onerous for the podling, and only embarrasses mentors who
> deserve to be embarrassed.
> >
> > What to do about deadbeat mentors? The current thinking is that every
> project should have three mentors, and if at least one of them is active,
> that’s OK. I think that the “rule of 3” actually makes the problem worse.
> It’s difficult to find three motivated individuals (or find enough work for
> them to do), so a podling will inevitably have one or two inactive mentors.
> It has become the norm that most mentors are inactive.
> >
> > I propose that we get rid of the rule of 3. If mentors are not active,
> they should be encouraged to step down, and if they don’t, the IPMC should
> remove them. If this leaves the podling with zero or one mentors, then IPMC
> can step in and appoint new mentors. A podling with two active mentors is
> probably doing just fine.
> >
> > Is this problem as serious as I think it is? Would my proposed solutions
> help?
> >
> > Julian
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> [hidden email]
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Bertrand Delacretaz
In reply to this post by Julian Hyde-3
Hi,

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Julian Hyde <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...Let’s add a question to the podling report template, as follows:
>
>> Have your mentors been helpful and responsive? If not, describe what advice or help
>> you needed, or need:..

I like it but would phrase it slightly differently:

"Have your mentors been helpful and responsive or are things falling
through the cracks? In the latter case, please list open issues that
need to be addressed".

> ...I propose that we get rid of the rule of 3. If mentors are not active, they should
> be encouraged to step down, and if they don’t, the IPMC should remove them...

+1 but for starting a podling I still like having at least two mentors.

-Bertrand

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Willem Jiang
In reply to this post by Roman Shaposhnik
+1 for taking consideration of release vote.
It's quite important process of the podling.


Willem Jiang

Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
          http://jnn.iteye.com  (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Ted Dunning <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I think the problem is serious. I also think that signoff rate is a
> better
> > metric in practice than it seems it would be.
>
> That problem is indeed pretty serious and also pretty chronic.
>
> As for the metric -- I really think that using mentor turnout on release
> voting threads will serve us well.
>
> > Adding the additional metric seems like a small step that could help.
> >
> > Being aggressive about removing non-mentors is a very good idea. It is
> best
> > if mentors remove themselves, but it is imperative that the incubator
> has a
> > realistic idea about how many mentors there really are.
>
> Big +1 on the above. Perhaps if we:
>    1. get a clear indication on release vote turnout (as part of
> Incubator report)
>    2. add to it the sign-off turnout
>
> We can start at least nagging unresponsive mentors to begin
> with and if behaviour doesn't improve -- suggest that podlings
> start looking for a replacement.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

吴晟 Sheng Wu
In reply to this post by Julian Hyde-3
+1 for the needs of active mentors. As a new podling project PPMC, I and our project committers learn a lot from out mentors about the Apache way. The mentor and communication stuffs need a lot of time, so I totally agree, active mentors are very important for podling project members.


------------------
Sheng Wu
Apache SkyWalking original creator and PPMC member


 




------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Julian Hyde"<[hidden email]>;
Date:  Thu, Mar 29, 2018 06:20 AM
To:  "general"<[hidden email]>;

Subject:  [DISCUSS] Absent mentors



The incubator has an ongoing problem with lack of mentor engagement. Mentors are a crucial component of the incubation process. Incubation is the time when projects learn the Apache Way, and they cannot learn in a vacuum.

I’d like to discuss possible solutions to this problem. I’d like to hear from both podlings (PPMC members) and from IPMC members.

(By the way, it’s not just a problem for podlings. As a mentor, I am demoralized when I feel my co-mentors are not pulling their weight, and I get a little closer to burn-out.)

How to detect deadbeat mentors? One solution that has been discussed before is counting mentor sign-offs on podlings’ quarterly reports. Any project that received one or two sign-offs was deemed to be doing just fine. This is an imperfect metric.

Another remedy is to require podlings to be proactive: if they are not receiving adequate supervision, they should reach out to the IPMC and demand a change in mentors. The problem is, podlings have by definition not been through incubation before, so do not know what to expect. They don’t want to rock the boat.

I propose another solution. Let’s add a question to the podling report template, as follows:

> Have your mentors been helpful and responsive? If not, describe what advice or help
> you needed, or need:

It isn't too onerous for the podling, and only embarrasses mentors who deserve to be embarrassed.

What to do about deadbeat mentors? The current thinking is that every project should have three mentors, and if at least one of them is active, that’s OK. I think that the “rule of 3” actually makes the problem worse. It’s difficult to find three motivated individuals (or find enough work for them to do), so a podling will inevitably have one or two inactive mentors. It has become the norm that most mentors are inactive.

I propose that we get rid of the rule of 3. If mentors are not active, they should be encouraged to step down, and if they don’t, the IPMC should remove them. If this leaves the podling with zero or one mentors, then IPMC can step in and appoint new mentors. A podling with two active mentors is probably doing just fine.

Is this problem as serious as I think it is? Would my proposed solutions help?

Julian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Justin Mclean
In reply to this post by Roman Shaposhnik
Hi,

> As for the metric -- I really think that using mentor turnout on release
> voting threads will serve us well.

My concern with using that as a metric is people will just vote +1 without doing a thorough check and we may end up with more releases with issues.

Possibly a better metric is how many mentors voted something other than +1 on a RC, most releases (other than very simple ones) go through a couple of RCs before coming to the IPMC.

Another metric is which project releases get a -1 in the IPMC as those issue should of been caught by the projects mentors.

Thanks,
Justin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Willem Jiang
Yeah, it's easy to vote +1, but vote -1 take lots of time to go through the
kits.

To be honestly, I learned a lot of License and Notice stuff thing from
Justin's -1 vote, I really appreciate that.


Willem Jiang

Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
          http://jnn.iteye.com  (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > As for the metric -- I really think that using mentor turnout on release
> > voting threads will serve us well.
>
> My concern with using that as a metric is people will just vote +1 without
> doing a thorough check and we may end up with more releases with issues.
>
> Possibly a better metric is how many mentors voted something other than +1
> on a RC, most releases (other than very simple ones) go through a couple of
> RCs before coming to the IPMC.
>
> Another metric is which project releases get a -1 in the IPMC as those
> issue should of been caught by the projects mentors.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

吴晟 Sheng Wu
Agree, Justin's -1 really helps and pushes SkyWalking to do right things in releasing.
Thanks a lot, even we delayed our release two times (2 weeks)


:) Thanks Justin.


Sheng Wu


 
---Original---
From: "Willem Jiang"<[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, Apr 1, 2018 16:17 PM
To: "general"<[hidden email]>;
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors


Yeah, it's easy to vote +1, but vote -1 take lots of time to go through the
kits.

To be honestly, I learned a lot of License and Notice stuff thing from
Justin's -1 vote, I really appreciate that.


Willem Jiang

Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
          http://jnn.iteye.com  (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > As for the metric -- I really think that using mentor turnout on release
> > voting threads will serve us well.
>
> My concern with using that as a metric is people will just vote +1 without
> doing a thorough check and we may end up with more releases with issues.
>
> Possibly a better metric is how many mentors voted something other than +1
> on a RC, most releases (other than very simple ones) go through a couple of
> RCs before coming to the IPMC.
>
> Another metric is which project releases get a -1 in the IPMC as those
> issue should of been caught by the projects mentors.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Julian Hyde-3
Would it be possible to generate a short list of all current
mentors for all current podlings to see how many podlings
each mentor is signed up for? That would be a good metric
to know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Shane Curcuru-2
Jim Jagielski wrote on 4/1/18 10:19 AM:
> Would it be possible to generate a short list of all current
> mentors for all current podlings to see how many podlings
> each mentor is signed up for? That would be a good metric
> to know.

Presuming podlings.xml is kept updated:


https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/podlings.xml

That now sorts by @status first, so current podlings are on top.  That's
separate from whimsy cross-checks of what's listed in board reports and
actual signoffs.

--

- Shane
  Director & Member
  The Apache Software Foundation

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Dave Fisher-5

On Apr 1, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Shane Curcuru <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jim Jagielski wrote on 4/1/18 10:19 AM:
Would it be possible to generate a short list of all current
mentors for all current podlings to see how many podlings
each mentor is signed up for? That would be a good metric
to know.

Presuming podlings.xml is kept updated:


https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/podlings.xml

That now sorts by @status first, so current podlings are on top.  That's
separate from whimsy cross-checks of what's listed in board reports and
actual signoffs.


This file has each mentor listed. There are duplicates lines when people have variations on their names in the date in podlings.xml. Probably there needs to be a fix to use username attribute and not the mentor value in the clutch.py program.

I can see people in the list who probably don’t even think they are a mentor to a podling.

Should we send a note to all mentors recorded asking if they are still engaged?

Regards,
Dave


--

- Shane
 Director & Member
 The Apache Software Foundation

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Luciano Resende
Clutch is available at :
http://incubator.apache.org/clutch/

See Mentors project section for a list of podlings and its mentors.

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Apr 1, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Shane Curcuru <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 4/1/18 10:19 AM:
>
> Would it be possible to generate a short list of all current
> mentors for all current podlings to see how many podlings
> each mentor is signed up for? That would be a good metric
> to know.
>
>
> Presuming podlings.xml is kept updated:
>
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/
> content/podlings.xml
>
> That now sorts by @status first, so current podlings are on top.  That's
> separate from whimsy cross-checks of what's listed in board reports and
> actual signoffs.
>
>
> The clutch runs periodically and generates https://svn.apache.
> org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/clutch/clutchm.ent
>
> This file has each mentor listed. There are duplicates lines when people
> have variations on their names in the date in podlings.xml. Probably there
> needs to be a fix to use username attribute and not the mentor value in the
> clutch.py program.
>
> I can see people in the list who probably don’t even think they are a
> mentor to a podling.
>
> Should we send a note to all mentors recorded asking if they are still
> engaged?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
> --
>
> - Shane
>  Director & Member
>  The Apache Software Foundation
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>


--
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Henri Yandell-3
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean
+1 to flagging mentor absence; and I like making it automated otherwise
it's not going to happen (or rather, it'll be up to a podling to flag it
and they're unlikely to feel comfortable doing so).

Justin's two metrics are interesting to me as I (kinda) don't view either
of those as mentor responsibilities.

For me a mentor is:

1) Someone who prods the podling to move along to the next step in its path
in the incubator.
2) Someone who monitors the list for general 'flow'. Is dev happening, does
it seem to be moving along nicely etc.
3) Someone who joins in on exceptional/abnormal threads (ie: when #2 hits
bumps).
4) Someone who deep dives early on in the podlings life to get things
moving.
5) Someone who is reviewing the podling's board report.

For me a mentor is not required to be:

1) Someone who is a coder on the project, or deep in the technology in
question.
2) Someone who votes on how the project chooses to develop, or
3) Someone who votes on the technical choices in the project,
4) Or, someone who is deep diving into release votes once a general cadence
has been set (beyond that need for IPMC +1s).

When a project is ready to graduate, the mentors of the project should be
doing practically nothing with their mentor hat on.

--

Given all that, I would definitely lean towards automated flagging for
mentors when not reviewing the podling's board report.

I'd also have an urge for us to define more specific milestones within
incubation, with more expectation on mentor activity for podlings at
earlier milestones.

Hen


On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > As for the metric -- I really think that using mentor turnout on release
> > voting threads will serve us well.
>
> My concern with using that as a metric is people will just vote +1 without
> doing a thorough check and we may end up with more releases with issues.
>
> Possibly a better metric is how many mentors voted something other than +1
> on a RC, most releases (other than very simple ones) go through a couple of
> RCs before coming to the IPMC.
>
> Another metric is which project releases get a -1 in the IPMC as those
> issue should of been caught by the projects mentors.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Justin Mclean
Hi,

> Justin's two metrics are interesting to me as I (kinda) don't view either
> of those as mentor responsibilities.

Interesting how do you projects you mentor get to work out release profile and what need to done re license and notice? Or are they simple boiler plate license and notice releases and/or already involve ASF people who have those skills and know what to look for?

> For me a mentor is: <snip>

For sure it not just helping out with releases, but some of those things you mentioned are hard to measure in any real way.

> I'd also have an urge for us to define more specific milestones within
> incubation, with more expectation on mentor activity for podlings at
> earlier milestones.

What would those milestones be? One of them I assume would be a podling first release and vote on the IPMC?

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Henri Yandell-3
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Justin's two metrics are interesting to me as I (kinda) don't view either
> > of those as mentor responsibilities.
>
> Interesting how do you projects you mentor get to work out release profile
> and what need to done re license and notice? Or are they simple boiler
> plate license and notice releases and/or already involve ASF people who
> have those skills and know what to look for?
>

I subsequently proviso'd it with: "once a general cadence has been set".


>
> > For me a mentor is: <snip>
>
> For sure it not just helping out with releases, but some of those things
> you mentioned are hard to measure in any real way.
>
> > I'd also have an urge for us to define more specific milestones within
> > incubation, with more expectation on mentor activity for podlings at
> > earlier milestones.
>
> What would those milestones be? One of them I assume would be a podling
> first release and vote on the IPMC?
>

Yeah. Half-arsed guess (and these start to feel more like badges in that
they can be in parallel, but I think there is a typical/ideal order):

* Minimum Infrastructure Setup complete
* All ICLAs signed/IPMC setup
* Licensing Sorted
* First (no major issue) Release Complete
* X% new contributors converted to IPMC
* Graduation delta identified (a thread in which general@ agrees on the
remaining items before graduation)

Tempted to throw in these, though feeling more badge-like:

* Website complete (brand, security note, link to Foundation etc)
* Apache Blogged
* Conference presentation
* Board report complete, no comments/concerns

Hen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

Mark Thomas
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher-5
On 01/04/18 21:26, Dave Fisher wrote:

>
>> On Apr 1, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Shane Curcuru <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote on 4/1/18 10:19 AM:
>>> Would it be possible to generate a short list of all current
>>> mentors for all current podlings to see how many podlings
>>> each mentor is signed up for? That would be a good metric
>>> to know.
>>
>> Presuming podlings.xml is kept updated:
>>
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/podlings.xml
>>
>> That now sorts by @status first, so current podlings are on top.  That's
>> separate from whimsy cross-checks of what's listed in board reports and
>> actual signoffs.
>
> The clutch runs periodically and
> generates https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/clutch/clutchm.ent 
>
> This file has each mentor listed. There are duplicates lines when people
> have variations on their names in the date in podlings.xml. Probably
> there needs to be a fix to use username attribute and not the mentor
> value in the clutch.py program.
>
> I can see people in the list who probably don’t even think they are a
> mentor to a podling.
>
> Should we send a note to all mentors recorded asking if they are still
> engaged?

That seems like a sensible first step to me. I suggest asking for
explicit confirmation that they wish to continue as a mentor. That
should hopefully give us a better picture of how things currently stand.

Mark


>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> - Shane
>>  Director & Member
>>  The Apache Software Foundation
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12