It doesn't need to be in the public report. I agree the shepherd model doesn't work here but I still maintain that doesn't mean it can't work.
Accountability, responsibility and reward are what I believe are needed. I've made my suggestions as to how to provide all three Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Marvin Humphrey<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 1/22/2015 11:08 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.) On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > If you would like to characterize shepherds as cross-cutting > mentors-at-large, I wouldn't disagree. It's costly to produce such cross-cutting commentary. Because the product ends up in the public report, it's risky to be candid -- recall the Drill shepherd review that raised objections: <http://s.apache.org/ed>. Shepherds can diminish the risk either by spending more time gathering information, raising the cost, or by being more circumspect, diminishing the review's usefulness. Both choices are suboptimal. In any case, the Incubator struggles to get consistent shepherd participation. While the fact that Incubator shepherds are less accountable than Board members might keep participation under 100% any given month, my guess is that the main reason the number is under 50% and trending downward is cost/benefit ratio -- shepherds are making a rational choice to occupy themselves with tasks they perceive as less arduous and/or more rewarding. Maybe the time will come to revisit this issue if shepherd participation flatlines, though that's not a very satisfying outcome... Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
