Ambassadors/Mentors Survey

Place to collect the results from the Mentors Survey

What were your expectations when you signed up to become a mentor?

• I had no expectations. Actually, I didn't even expect to become a mentor, you surprised me when you proposed my candidacy :)

• I expected to give guidance to those who wanted to become Fedora Ambassadors. That was really the only thing that I expected -- as far as the people involved, I expected everyone to act professionally and with courtesy, and everyone has acted that way. As for the people I mentor, most have been enthusiastic and informed about Fedora, which has been a plus.

• When I signed up to be a mentor my understanding is that I'm going to contribute by helping applicants gain the necessary knowledge to use the tools Ambassadors use. When I started out in Ambassadors, I had a long time figuring out things that to me now look very simple.
  • Another expectation was to know more Ambassadors. By being a mentor, applicants would need to talk to me and for me that's fun. It's not everyday you can talk to a Fedora Ambassador you haven't worked with in the past.
  • An additional bonus is that I mostly work with guys from APAC - for me that's an added motivation. When I started in Ambassadors, we're just a handful who attends regional meetings, writes on the mailing list, etc. It brings a good feeling when you come across someone you mentored in one of those meetings, make you feel proud.

• Nothing as such. But I expected to guide a few more people into the group and subsequent leadership positions.

• My expectation were to help Ambassador Team and help new people intro contributors.

• to improve the knowledge and experience of new Fedora Ambassadors. Or with other words: Quality instead of quantity.

How much of these have been met in the current form of the mentor-candidate relationship?

• All of them.
• Pretty much everything is spot on.
• Not much. We have not found many candidates who are willing and/or fit to get into the positions.
• I feel that I have create good relationship with some new ambassadors, and for others was just protocol.
• All

Do Mentors have enough feedback on the accountability and transparency of the system with https://fedorahosted.org/fama/?

• Well, sometimes I'm not really sure if I'm doing the right thing, but apparently you never said I wasn't, so I guess I have enough feedback and everything's fine. :)
• I think so. Although if there's a way to make it more open and transparent, I wouldn't object (but I don't know what that might be).
• When people use the system, we have enough. When we don't, awkward situations arise.
• I am unable to answer this because I am one of the admins. But I think I am pretty satisfied with the transparency.
• Yes, I think that there is enough detail to know what is going on which each application.
• Yes - but I've to add, that the information in the trac (except for the tickets) are partially outdated, deprecated or obsolete. They should maybe get an update to reflect current things.

Do you consider the need for any tooling to help with this workflow (Memberhsip Wizard was a big improvement!)?

• Frankly, I have no idea. I just started doing this, I just mentored my 5th mentee, so this is all kinda new. I'll probably have more hindsight after a few more time.
• Outside of Membership Wizard -- a huge +1 -- I don't think there is a need.
• Standardizing mentor requirements will be one - makes me wonder why applicants shop between mentors.
• Yes, sort of.
• No, I think that we need to wait and see how efficient is the new wiki guide.
• No. Regarding the membership wizard: It's a nice to have, but in fact, the wizard seems not to be that widely used as it maybe should (new ambassadors have still poor/not really meaningful wiki pages). Maybe the wizard needs to point out, that people should write something personal, what they are planning to do in Fedora and how they're right now contributing. Just the contact data are not really meaningful for an ambassador. But ambassadors - at least from my point of view - need to have meaningful wiki pages, as they are representing and promoting Fedora.

Do we need higher entry barriers for Ambassadors (examples: requiring some time in the Fedora Project, CLA+1, proven work on tasks)?

• Not necessarily. When I'm mentoring someone, I'm mostly trying to evaluate his maturity. If the candidate is mature enough, then he will be able to:
  • learn what he has to
  • ask questions when he doesn't know
  • not to be afraid to say « I don't know, let me check and I'll come back to answer you later :) »
  • participate in organizing events
  • dedicate himself to his ambassadorship
  • ...
• I'm not trying to judge what the contributor is *now* (CLA+1) but what he could *become*. Then it's up to me to help him prove me wrong by becoming even more than that. :) So no, I don't think more requirements are *necessary*, though I don't think they would be harmful either. What I do think however is important, is to go on giving mentors complete freedom over how they evaluate candidates (which doesn't mean mentors can't be « peer-reviewed » from time to time, especially for young mentors)
• I am not sure. On one hand, I like to make sure people are enthusiastic and committed to Fedora before approving them, but on the other hand, I don't know if you want to set the bar too high. The equivalent program in Ubuntu, for example, in North America tends to have a higher requirement and many people don't want to deal with this. I guess what I'm saying is that I believe that most people who become Fedora Ambassadors do their chosen duties at a level at which they're comfortable -- if they go to two or three local events a year and hand out some CDs and swag, and maybe talk to their groups, I'm OK with that. And having said this, I think have some requirements in place keeps out the people who just join us to get "stuff."
• This is tricky. we can justify the need for such measures but it's my belief that everyone should undergo through the same vetting process.
• Not really. But I think the process can be made a bit streamlined.
• There are some skills that are trivial, yet important for the vitual community. The etiquette for mailing list and IRC. Not all ambassadors are technical people, we invite them as people persons. I think that show them how to get into IRC and comment a bit about mailing list is relevant in this mentorship and probably not in for other teams. Maybe a review of their wiki skills. As Latam have their own infrastructure, we have some double task. Like double wiki user pages, double mailing list subscriptions.
• The most common issue, I'm personally seeing is, that somebody is just a Fedora fanboy and would like to get a Fedora Ambassador. That's something making mentoring more hard. Or people believe, they've more success at work once they've got a title. From my point of view, requiring some active time in the Fedora Project or CLA+1 would definately make sense.

We had discussion on Mentors who were proposed as a Mentor without running a single Event before, do we need more entry requirements for Ambassador Mentors?

• I think there should be only one requirement to become a mentor: that others trust your judgement on who would be a good ambassador, and how to get them there. This kind of trust is acquired with time and effort, which *can* be running events, giving talks, ... I don't think it is possible to quantify it however. This is IMHO rather a question of judgement, feeling, and trust.
• At the least there should be a time requirement, like a minimum of one year of membership in the Ambassadors program (it can be longer, of course, but I'm using one year as an example). I also think that those of us who are mentors already know fairly well which of the Ambassadors exhibit leadership potential and, hopefully, we can encourage them to become Mentors.
• I think it's reasonable to expect that Mentors be able to walk their talk.
• We do. At least we need a few points upon which the judgement can be made a bit "objective". Right now the whole process is subjective.
• I am not sure what are the current requirements, but running event experience is a must for mentors.
• No, because I think, the point that a mentor should be a knowledged and experienced ambassador is already a requirement, right? If not, please put this onto the list.