All the mentors are transitioned to emeritus. All the emeritus mentors can be reinstated merely by asking the IPMC. Emeritus mentors who wish to remain mentors must acknowledge that they will perform their duties as out lined in a clearly defined document.
The champion role would be removed. This role is merely a mentor who is publicly stating that s/he will be more active in the podlings incubation. This lets the other mentors off the hook and dilutes responsibility.
Shepherd roles would be removed; this is yet another avenue for diluting responsibility.
Mentor Qualifications and Responsibilities
All mentors must be IPMC members, period. People who volunteer to become mentors that are not in the IPMC must be a novice mentor, whose mentorship is not counted as an active mentor, for at least one podling's incubation. ASF members can become IPMC members. Non-ASF members must mentor a project before becoming an IPMC member.
A mentor is free to become inactive but must explicitly state this by notifying the PPMC and IPMC or else the mentor risks being removed, not deactivated, for not performing their duties. An inactive mentor can become re-activated by simply notifying the PPMC and IPMC.
An active mentor is removed from a podling if that mentor does not review/sign off on a release. An active mentor is removed from a podling if that mentor does not review/sign off on a board report. An inactive mentor is not removed from a podling for reasons of inactivity.
A removed mentor can be added back on to the podling, and thus the IPMC, after a 72 lazy consensus vote by the IPMC.
Podlings MUST have a minimum of two active mentors. Podlings that do not have the minimum of two active mentors are put on hold until they find enough mentors to fill the quota. Being put on hold means that no committers can be added, no PPMC members can be added, and no releases can be performed. It does not stop development.
When this occurs, the podling must actively recruit a new qualified volunteer to be a mentor.
Releases only need to receive +1 votes from at least three active mentors in which case there is no subsequent vote and/or review by the IPMC; IPMC members who wish to review releases for a podling must become a mentor. Releases that are unable to garner three +1 from active mentors must participate in a follow on vote presented to the IPMC to obtain the requisite three binding +1 votes by IPMC members.
Mentors that are not part of the original podling proposal do not automatically become committers of the podling simply by being its mentor; they must be voted in to be committers. Mentors cannot stay on the podling’s PMC after it graduates unless they have been voted in as committers.
- (rvs) unless we have 'clearly defined document' as part of the same proposal, it is unclear what is the standard we're holding mentors to
- (rvs) since part of this effort is to address the composition of IPMC I would like to see that IPMC == mentors. Period. IOW, the only way to be added to IPMC is to find a suitable poddling and convince its community to allow yourself as a mentor.
- (rvs) not only do I disagree with removal of a champion role, I feel it is critical. Perhaps it needs to be renamed, but unless we go to pTLP, Champion should be the closest equivalent to a Chair person for the poddling.
- (rvs) I would like to extend the minimun requirement to "each podling MUST have at least two active mentors. One of the active mentors has to be designated as a Champion. At least one of the two active mentors has to be an ASF member."
- (rvs) we have to have a timeframe for how long a poddling can be on-hold before it is considered for retirement
- (rvs) IPMC still has to sign-off on the releases, but via a 72 hours lazy consensus
- (rvs) the criteria for what makes a mentor be removed from a podling (and thus IPMC) consists of two parts: signing off on the releases and signing off on the reports. The former is good, the later is super weak. Unless we introduce a feedback loop of some kind (where poddlings are required to report back to IPMC on who they consider to be active mentors) I don't think we will see a change in behavior.
- (marvin) -1 on raising the bar for IPMC nominations and -1 on the proposed changes to release review procedure. I'm also concerned about how huge the proposal is and believe it needs to be broken up.
- (rvs) Instead of flooding IPMC/Chair with email requests, I'd suggest simply removing all the mentors from content/podlings.xml and then opening a window for them to add themselves back
- (rvs) Can we agree to track the status of the 'active'/'inactive' via a prop in content/podlings.xml ?
- (marvin) Propose retiring the shepherd role as a standalone initiative.