On May 10, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, here we have: > > Alan's idea of removing champions and shepherds and demanding mentor > recommitment, with the 'teeth' of putting podlings on ice if they > can't muster an adequate mentor squad. > > My idea of asking champions to step up to some specific supervision > responsibility, thus allowing some flexibility for some mentors to be > more 'supervisory' than others. > > Ross' ideas about shepherds, > > Chris' proposal to push the self-destruct button. > > Does anyone have a suggestion for a decision procedure? I don't see, > or foresee, a consensus for any of these. > > My draft board report says that if we don't find a way forward in time > for the June board meeting, I propose to discuss the situation with > the board. When ever I'm in a situation like this, I find it helpful to write down what are the core problems that we're trying to solve. The trick is to use something like "5 whys" to get down to the core set w/out getting distracted. Once you get down to the core problems you weight them. Break down people's proposals into as small as possible, self contained, actionable, bits. Grade each bit as to how well it solves a core problem. By then, it's obvious what bits to pick up; the simplest ones at the top. Regards, Alan
