Cascading Mentoring

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://protocol.tome.gg/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

Author	Start date	Implementation issue
Darren Karl Sapalo	06/03/2023	06/03/2023

​

Summary

If you cannot access the mentorship due to constraints (financial, time, etc), you may negotiate to still have an indirect level of mentorship with your primary mentor through cascading mentorship. In this design, you still have direct access to your desired primary mentor, but they will send their more senior apprentices to evaluate and give you feedback, which your primary mentor will review and correct as well.

​

Motivation

Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome? Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted, the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words, enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too closely to the solution you have in mind.

​

Detailed design

This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody familiar with the project to understand, and for somebody familiar with the implementation to implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases, and include examples of how the feature is used. Any new terminology should be defined here.

​

Drawbacks

Why should we not do this? Please consider:

• implementation cost, both in term of size and complexity
• whether the proposed feature can be implemented in user space
• integration of this feature with other existing and planned features
• cost of migrating (is it a breaking change?)

There are tradeoffs to choosing any path. Attempt to identify them here.

​

Alternatives

What other designs have been considered? What is the impact of not doing this?

​

Unresolved questions

• What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged?
• What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization?
• What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC?

​

Future possibilities

Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be and how it would affect the project as a whole in a holistic way. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible interactions with the project in your proposal. Also consider how this all fits into the roadmap for the project and of the relevant team. This is also a good place to “dump ideas”, if they are out of scope for the RFC you are writing but otherwise related. If you have tried and cannot think of any future possibilities, you may simply state that you cannot think of anything. Note that having something written down in the future-possibilities section is not a reason to accept the current or a future RFC; such notes should be in the section on motivation or rationale in this or subsequent RFCs. The section merely provides additional information.