Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 2, 2012 5:57 PM, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 2, 2012 8:10 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > >... > > I don't imagine the "bucketing" to be enshrined in written process, or > > even be fixed. More of a convenience. We might do it by, for example, > > asking Shepherds to identify the projects they would *prefer* to > > shepherd and why. To continue my example above I might say "I have an > > interest in any social related podling so I would prefer to shepherd > > Wave which is one such project I'm not a mentor on". Someone else > > might say "I'm really interested in communications protocols and so I > > will shepherd Wave". > > > > I'm not suggesting formality, just a semblance of structure. I think > > the best way to proceed is to get out list of shepherds, do a couple > > of months and then discuss whether this proposed next step will add > > anything to the process. My goal is to have more cross-community > > awareness in the incubator projects as I've observed that those > > projects that have someone actively seeking relationships tend to > > build critical mass sooner. My proposed approach is only one thing > > that might help in this regard. > > 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. Ross > (and no, I'm not volunteering; I read them all already, along with 40 more > reports... :-P) > > Cheers, > -g
