The Silent Mentor (ASF Interactive Scenario)

Browser lacks capabilities required to play.

Upgrade or switch to another browser.

Loading…

/* Initialise ASF-aligned learning metrics */ <<set $transparency = 0>> /* Visibility and clarity of mentor participation */ <<set $collaboration = 0>> /* Shared responsibility and teamwork between mentors and PPMC */ <<set $independence = 0>> /* PPMC-led governance and self-management */ <<set $shortcuts = 0>> /* Skipping discussion or process corrections */ <<set $escalation = 0>> /* Premature or excessive escalation */ <<set $steps = 0>> You are one of three mentors on a healthy incubating Apache project. The podling is active and responsive. However, one mentor has not posted to the list, voted on releases, or acknowledged reports in over six months. The next quarterly report is due, and another mentor says: > "We have been the only ones signing off. Should we keep listing them?" What do you do? <<link "Raise the issue on the private@ list for visibility">><<goto "A">><</link>> <<link "Contact the mentor privately first">><<goto "B">><</link>> <<link "Leave things as they are for now">><<goto "C">><</link>> <<link "Escalate to the IPMC immediately">><<goto "D">><</link>> <<link "Encourage the PPMC to review mentor engagement themselves">><<goto "E">><</link>> <<link "Propose a timeboxed mentor check-in cadence">><<goto "F">><</link>> <<link "Check expectations against the project wiki and STATUS">><<goto "G">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $transparency += 2>> /* Discusses openly on private@ */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Invites shared accountability */ You start a thread on private@: > "One mentor has not posted for half a year. Should we check if they still wish to continue?" Other mentors and the PPMC respond constructively. <<link "Propose to reach out together and summarise results on list">><<goto "A1Good">><</link>> <<link "Suggest removing the mentor immediately">><<goto "A1Fast">><</link>> <<link "Ping them publicly in next report draft for visibility">><<goto "A2PublicCallout">><</link>> <<link "Quietly ping once, then report back regardless">><<goto "A2QuietPingThenReport">><</link>> <<link "Open nominations to replace or add a mentor">><<goto "A2NominateReplacement">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Keeps process visible */ <<set $collaboration += 2>> /* Builds mutual trust */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Reinforces PPMC self-governance */ You agree to contact the mentor together and post a summary later. The process is transparent, and the podling sees healthy oversight. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $escalation += 1>> /* Too hasty without closure */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Risks alienating mentor or IPMC */ You post, "Let us just remove them." Others object that mentors should be given a chance to confirm or step down gracefully. <<link "Go to partial">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Visible, but risky tone */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Can feel performative */ <<set $escalation += 1>> /* Borderline escalation in a formal artifact */ You add a visible "mentor check-in requested" line in the report draft. Some appreciate clarity; others feel it pressures the individual. <<link "Go to damage">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Coordinated approach */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Follow-up documented */ <<set $shortcuts -= 0>> /* No shortcut taken, keep neutral */ You send a brief ping and then summarise that outreach on private@ before the report. <<link "Go to partial">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Done on private@ */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Group discussion */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC maturity grows */ You open a nominations thread for adding or replacing a mentor, pending contact with the inactive mentor. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Shows initiative */ <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Moves discussion off list */ You send a private email to the inactive mentor. No reply after a week. The other mentors still have not heard anything. <<link "Report back to private@ to document the attempt">><<goto "B1Good">><</link>> <<link "Decide to drop the matter for now">><<goto "B1Weak">><</link>> <<link "Escalate after no reply, ask IPMC for advice">><<goto "B2EscalateAfterNoReply">><</link>> <<link "Retry with a clear deadline, then summarise on list">><<goto "B2RetryThenSummarise">><</link>> <<link "Suggest the PPMC handle it informally off list">><<goto "B2DeflectToPPMCInformal">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 2>> /* Restores visibility */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Shares update responsibly */ You post: "I reached out privately, no response so far. Let us document this in the report and consider updating mentors." <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 2>> /* Avoids follow-up */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Leaves uncertainty */ You decide not to follow up publicly. The inactivity continues unnoticed for another quarter. <<link "Go to damage">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $escalation += 1>> /* Early escalation */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Visible but premature */ You open a guidance thread on general@ asking for examples. You are advised to close the loop on private@ first. <<link "Go to partial">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Persists with courtesy */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Documents outcome */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC-led fix */ You send a second, timeboxed ping, then summarise results and next steps on private@. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Off-list workaround */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Blurs roles and venues */ You suggest the PPMC "just handle it informally." Confusion increases about where mentoring accountability lives. <<link "Go to damage">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $shortcuts += 2>> /* Avoids visible correction */ <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Keeps gap hidden from oversight */ You decide not to mention the missing mentor. The report goes in as usual, signed by two mentors. No one follows up. Two sign-offs are acceptable for now. But over several quarters, the same pattern repeats. When the IPMC later reviews mentor coverage across all podlings, this gap finally stands out. <<link "Handle it reactively once questioned">><<goto "Damage">><</link>> <<link "Open a late corrective thread documenting the gap">><<goto "C1LateFixDocumented">><</link>> <<link "Quietly replace the mentor without discussion">><<goto "C1ReplaceWithoutConsult">><</link>> <<link "Start a light check-in thread to re-engage mentors">><<goto "C1OpenCheckinThread">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Belated visibility */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Shared clean-up */ <<set $shortcuts -= 0>> /* Still late */ You acknowledge the gap and propose a small improvement plan. <<link "Go to partial">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Skips courtesy contact */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Reduces trust */ You swap out the mentor name in STATUS and the report without contacting them. <<link "Go to damage">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 2>> /* Visible practice */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Re-engages people */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC-led rhythm */ You start a monthly "mentor check-in" thread. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $escalation += 2>> /* Premature escalation to public venue */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Visible but misplaced */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Reduces project autonomy */ You post to general@incubator.apache.org asking, "One of our mentors has gone missing. What should we do?" Several IPMC members remind you that this should start with private@ discussion first. <<link "Acknowledge and move discussion back to private@">><<goto "D1Good">><</link>> <<link "Keep the public thread going">><<goto "D1Bad">><</link>> <<link "Start a meta-thread capturing lessons learned">><<goto "D2MetaThreadLessons">><</link>> <<link "Escalate further by hinting at board attention">><<goto "D2EscalateToBoardRumor">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Corrects visibility */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Returns to proper venue */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Respects project-led correction */ You post a polite redirect and continue privately. The PPMC handles it well. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $escalation += 1>> /* Extends escalation */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Damages trust */ The mentor sees the thread later and feels criticised in public. The podling feels caught in the crossfire. <<link "Go to damage">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Surfacing patterns */ <<set $escalation += 1>> /* Still public-first */ You start a thread to gather practices across podlings without naming names. <<link "Go to partial">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $escalation += 2>> /* Needless escalation */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Harms trust widely */ You imply you might raise this to the board if it continues. <<link "Go to damage">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $independence += 2>> /* Encourages PPMC self-assessment */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Keeps mentoring visible */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Builds shared accountability */ You suggest to the PPMC: "You can assess mentor coverage yourselves. Let us include a short note in the next report." They agree and plan to discuss mentor engagement each quarter. <<link "Encourage them to document expectations">><<goto "E1Good">><</link>> <<link "Let them handle it informally">><<goto "E1Weak">><</link>> <<link "Rotate a mentor of the month for visible check-ins">><<goto "E2RotateMentorOfTheMonth">><</link>> <<link "Run a brief survey but take no action">><<goto "E2SurveyWithoutAction">><</link>> <<link "Add more mentors to compensate, without fixing participation">><<goto "E2OvercorrectAddMoreMentors">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Captures learning */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Improves visibility */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Builds maturity */ The PPMC adds a section to their wiki on mentor roles and engagement expectations. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Defers improvement */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Still cooperative */ They agree in principle but do not document anything. Next cycle, the same confusion arises. <<link "Go to partial">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Regular visible touchpoints */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Shared ownership */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC-led rhythm */ A simple rotation ensures each mentor checks in monthly. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Input gathered */ <<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* No follow-through */ A quick survey surfaces issues but no changes are made. <<link "Go to partial">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Avoids the root cause */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Dilutes accountability */ You add more mentors without addressing participation expectations. <<link "Go to damage">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Proposes routine visibility */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Shared cadence */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC-led scheduling */ You propose a monthly, timeboxed mentor check-in cadence with a one-line "still here" reply expectation. <<link "Confirm cadence on private@ and note in next report">><<goto "F1Good">><</link>> <<link "Pilot it informally off list first">><<goto "F1InformalPilot">><</link>> <<link "Make it mandatory immediately without discussion">><<goto "F1HardMandate">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Documented practice */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Consensus-based */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Sustained ownership */ The cadence is adopted and referenced in STATUS and reports. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Off-list trial lacks visibility */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Cooperative intent */ A few people try it ad hoc, but it never becomes a project practice. <<link "Go to partial">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $escalation += 1>> /* Imposed without consensus */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Reduces goodwill */ You announce a hard rule without prior discussion. <<link "Go to damage">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Checks documentation */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Works with PPMC */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* Encourages self-governance */ You review the wiki and STATUS to confirm mentor expectations are clear and current. <<link "Open a doc patch to clarify expectations and reporting">><<goto "G1DocPatch">><</link>> <<link "Note gaps privately without filing a patch">><<goto "G1AuditOnly">><</link>> <<link "Propose removing the mentor text entirely to avoid confusion">><<goto "G1RemoveText">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Clear references */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Co-author changes */ You submit a patch that clarifies mentor roles and sign-off visibility. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Observation without action */ You log a private note but do not file a patch. <<link "Go to partial">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Removes guidance rather than fixing it */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* Less clarity for the PPMC */ You remove the mentor expectations section to avoid contention. <<link "Go to damage">><<goto "Damage">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> The mentoring issue was handled transparently and constructively. PPMC and mentors cooperated in the open. Coverage and accountability improved. Lessons were documented for future podlings. <<link "Reflect on your choices">><<goto "Reflect">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> The situation was addressed but not fully resolved. The podling continues with partial oversight, risking confusion about accountability. <<link "Reflect on your choices">><<goto "Reflect">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> The long silence became noticeable only after several quarters, when the IPMC reviewed mentor coverage across all podlings. The podling appears stable, but the lack of visible mentorship raises concern. The IPMC reminds all mentors to post occasional check-ins, even brief "+1, still here" notes, to keep oversight visible. <<link "Reflect on your choices">><<goto "Reflect">><</link>>

<<set $total = $transparency + $collaboration + $independence - $shortcuts - $escalation>> You have reached the end of the scenario. <<if $total >= 8>> You modelled ASF-aligned mentoring: transparent, balanced, and empowering for the PPMC. <</if>> <<if $total >= 4 and $total < 8>> You resolved the problem effectively but could have improved long-term visibility or shared learning. <</if>> <<if $total >= 0 and $total < 4>> The issue was managed, but with limited transparency or collaboration. Oversight gaps may persist. <</if>> <<if $total < 0>> The approach reduced community trust and transparency. Mentor changes should be handled visibly and with empathy. <</if>> ''Reflection Questions'' - How does visibility of mentor activity affect community trust? - What is the difference between transparency and escalation in this context? - How can mentors model accountability without taking control from the PPMC? - How might this scenario connect to the ASF value of community-led governance? <<link "Restart Scenario">><<goto "Start">><</link>>