| [News.eclipse.foundation] Re: [EDP] Mentors Council or Coaching Squad? |
Jeff,
It kind of sounds like we are in complete agreement. ;-)
As I said in the other note, I've needed for such help myself on more than one occasion. And it can definitely be too hard to come by...
Ed Merks wrote:Jeff,
I was there and I would interpret the reaction as one of: "Aren't we already doing that?" and "If we aren't already doing that well---who says we aren't?---shouldn't we just fix that problem rather than create some new group, which is likely to suffer the same problems as the current group?"
Two comments:
- Apparently there are lots of new projects that could use help on their way towards graduating and releasing. They may be getting help here and there but at least some of them (anecdotally) are in need/desire of explicit support/help.
- In fact I was particularly keen on NOT creating a separate group but rather broadening/enhancing the scope of the AC to include propagation of the architectural vision of Eclipse through active mentoring and participation in reviews.I think this was a key point and perhaps a reason for misunderstandings. The AC should already be performing this important role, and if it's not doing that well, the problems should be addressed directly. If it's an issue of resource, then adding more people to the group, rather than creating a new group, would make sense. If it's an issue of skills (there are lots of rules and they change a lot), then "we" need to help mentor the mentors...
Yes. Like many, I tend to be very focused, perhaps overly so, and it's nice to get the broader perspective at least once in a while.
The interesting side effect of the "architects" (if you will) being involved in a more diverse set of projects should be an increase in cross-project understanding and cooperation.
I think you've made the point, and I completely agree, that this is the AC's role already and if it's being done poorly, that should be addressed. I doubt problems are the lack of good intention, but certainly in my own case, lack of time and to some extent lack of skill are definitely a factor.
I strongly disagree with any summary that concludes that the council did not see this as a very important issue. We spent
I certainly did not mean to imply it was not seen as important simply that the AC chose not to take on that role. I'm going to pick on the logic here for a minute.
If it is very important and there isn't to be a different group but you don't want to do it, how is this going to get done and who is going to do it?
As I said, we seem to be in total agreement on this point. ;-)
hour, Rich and I had to leave to give a talk, so this was effectively the only topic we discussed at the council. (It's clear that meetings that overlap with other events will not be as well attended as they should be.)
Actually this is a concern I have since I am also on the Board and those meetings often seem to overlap with at least some Council meetings. My Clone is in the shop indefinitely so I'm doomed to miss various Council meetings (even if I was on some of them).
the focus should be more on such specific problems. Also, ask yourself this question: how many of the people important to driving Eclipse's architecture are typically present at the architecture council to help make it effective and to make it fully an architecture council, i.e., with a focus on the design part of your architect definition, rather than mostly with a focus on the supervisory part? I've only been to two meetings (the first being more effective than the second, in my opinion), and the next meeting is so close to EclipseCon that it's not really a justifiable expense to travel for it.
The question of representation is a fine one. I honestly have no idea what the composition of the AC is and how it got to be that way.
Sidenote: I certainly am not picking on the AC. I want mentors. I happen to think that the "Architecture Council", simply considering the name and a rough sketch of their purpose, is the right body to supply said mentors.
Jeff