From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LPgML-0000EO-Jv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:55:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E21FE050C; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:55:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763F2E050C for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:55:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (xray.science.oregonstate.edu [128.193.220.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F65D6422C; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:55:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:55:19 -0800 From: Donnie Berkholz To: Douglas Anderson Cc: Gentoo project list Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Improving our people Message-ID: <20090121165519.GA12642@comet> References: <1816200222-1232218654-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1608419775-@bxe165.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4976627D.6050306@gentoo.org> <20090121043023.GA19091@comet> <20090121043241.GB19091@comet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UugvWAfsgieZRqgk" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: 32422c15-0bf9-4541-b631-65cbb8db6390 X-Archives-Hash: 9249ad3e67a1636cba7c650e6217005c --UugvWAfsgieZRqgk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 16:04 Wed 21 Jan , Douglas Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Donnie Berkholz w= rote: > > On 20:30 Tue 20 Jan , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >> It isn't necessarily obvious from a recruiter's interaction with a > >> mentor whether he is good at the actual task of mentoring. > > > > We could take a tip from the Summer of Code and have both mentor and > > mentee fill out a quick eval at the end of probation. This would perhaps > > be more valuable over a longer probation. > > >=20 > The evaluation is a good idea, but it would have to be something maybe > only devrel had access to. How would mentors know what they need to improve upon? One way to answer this is to have 2 sections -- 1 optional section that=20 only recruiters see, and 1 that the mentor sees. > With the Summer of Code, many students leave the project after they're=20 > finished, The best ones stay. And they fill out evals too, so it's clearly a=20 solvable problem. > but with a new dev they're just starting a (hopefully) long=20 > relationship with their mentor. I personally would hesitate to point=20 > out the weak points of an experienced developer if I were just=20 > starting out here. Something to think about... I would love to improve my mentoring, and suggestions to help me are=20 welcome. Pointing out unfixable weak points is also welcome because=20 those are areas I should avoid, instead focusing on what I'm good at. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --UugvWAfsgieZRqgk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkl3U3cACgkQXVaO67S1rtsalACgjU+mnJGje+LGVu8OZDTICLhR E/wAn1lZ/XfXBityglBL8cqhadWufMzT =xYUf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UugvWAfsgieZRqgk--