On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On May 2, 2012 5:57 PM, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >... >> Stated interests, and cross-community awareness are at odds with each > other. >> >> The Board randomly assigns shepherds to the reports, *specifically* to >> ensure Directors get a wider view of the org, and to avoid falling into >> some kind of blinders/rut with reviewing the same project repeatedly. >> > > Hmmm... I see your point. > > Maybe this is the wrong place to do this. I do think there is value in the > long term plan as expressed during the incubator reboot discussions. But > you make a strong argument as to why the shepherds process is the wrong > place to hang this particular goal.
Hrm. Maybe I wasn't clear: I completely support the notion of shepherds for podling reports. It provides more review for the Incubator PMC itself, in order to determine what it needs to do. Then it kicks the result up to the Board and starts to perform the Action Items that fell out of those reports. My concern was on the notion of "permanently" assigning a shepherd to one or more podlings, or some kind of "interest-based" assignment. For myself, I think it seems best to gather insights from "all corners" of the Incubator by getting something different to review each month. Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
