...

• Choose mentors based on engagement, availability, and complementary experience, not reputation or affiliation.
• Encourage proposers to work with potential mentors early, before the proposal vote, to confirm mutual understanding.
• If a mentor is inactive, the podling should raise the issue on the incubator list and request a replacement through the normal process.

...

Scenario: Delayed Mentor Escalation

In one podling, mentors noticed that activity had slowed, releases were overdue, and discussions were dominated by a few individuals. Although these issues persisted for several quarters, the prodling did not report them, the mentors hesitated to raise them with the Incubator PMC, hoping the community would recover on its own. When the podling later proposed graduation, the IPMC was surprised to learn how long the problems had existed, and the vote was postponed pending corrective action.

Reflection questions

1. When should mentors escalate persistent issues to the IPMC, and what kinds of problems warrant early discussion?
2. How can mentors balance supporting the podling privately with keeping the wider Incubator community informed?
3. What mechanisms exist to help mentors share concerns without damaging community trust?

Possible path forward

• Mentors should inform the IPMC early when a podling shows sustained inactivity, release delays, or governance problems.
• Use private@incubator for sensitive concerns and general@incubator for public awareness and guidance.
• Encourage the PPMC to document challenges transparently in reports so the IPMC can assist before issues become critical.
• Treat escalation as part of responsible mentorship, not as failure — timely communication helps protect both the podling and the wider community.

...

Conflict Resolution and Communication

...