Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-03-09 12:22:08 -0500: > On 03/09/2016 11:36 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Colette Alexander's message of 2016-03-08 14:34:19 -0800: > >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> As I understood it when this course was originally proposed, the > >>> idea was to have a few folks already in leadership positions go > >>> take the training and evaluate it. Then, assuming the evaluation > >>> was good, we would offer it to (or at least suggest it to) other > >>> members of the community like PTLs or folks interested in running > >>> for leadership positions of some sort (not that folks who aren't > >>> elected can't be leaders, but one step at a time). > >>> > >>> How did that evolve into most of the TC (and Board?) going? Did > >>> someone do that evaluation already? > >>> > >> > >> it only evolved into much of the TC going because more people than I > >> initially expected to based on previous conversations expressed interest in > >> being able to attend. The general cost of a single custom-session for a > >> group makes it possible to accommodate that larger group (so, having 10-20 > >> people in an exclusive, not-public session, is within the bounds of > >> expected attendance). No one from the board so far has said they'd be able > >> to attend, fwiw, and I've checked with a few of them privately to gauge > >> interest, which seems minimal there. I don't think the expectation that > >> this is an 'official' or 'required' training is suddenly there, though - > >> this will still be intended to be an evaluative session, just one that was > >> more conducive, timing-wise, to the schedules of people who expressed > >> interest in attending it. > > > > My interest in attending is based solely on the number of other TC > > members going. If a majority go, I feel I need to attend to have a good > > common frame of reference for future discussions. If only one or two > > folks go and prepare some sort of evaluation, I can skip the trip and > > only attend a future course if the evaluators recommend it. > > > >>> I've already expressed my skepticism of the idea of a business > >>> leadership class, and this specific class, being useful to us. I > >>> did so privately because I am willing to listen to the feedback > >>> from folks that do attend and I haven't really been involved in the > >>> planning aside from being asked to be part of the small group doing > >>> an initial evaluation. But now if we're gearing up to send a large > >>> group to I feel it's necessary to say something publicly. > >>> > >>> Do we have a set of goals for the outcome of having folks take a > >>> "leadership" course? Do we have specific issues we would like to > >>> address through changes in leadership style? Does this course cover > >>> them? > >>> > >> > >> So I laid out some of the questions I think the community could benefit > >> from alignment on in the etherpad I started already[0], but one of the > >> things that really struck me when talking to various members of the TC and > >> the community at large about leadership was how vastly different everyone's > >> experience, opinions, and approaches were to the questions I asked (which > >> were variations of: "As an elected leader in OpenStack, what do you wish > >> you would've had as resources to help you adjust to a leadership position?" > >> and "What do you think leaders in OpenStack could benefit from, in terms of > >> skillsets that could be strengthened or added via any kind of training?") > >> At some points, I had people suggesting to me completely opposite > >> definitions for the 'problem' of leadership in OpenStack, suggesting that > >> certain skillsets that others wanted training for didn't matter at all, and > >> generally realized that maybe we all don't have a great shared definition > >> of what leadership skills matter here in the community. Having been > >> interacting with the community for a few years now, I wasn't surprised by > >> the diversity of opinions, but I think it does mean that some alignment on > >> defining the problem would be worthwhile. > >> > >> Hence, the idea that perhaps a small group of existing leadership should > >> get together in a room and talk about how to define/agree on the problem > >> appropriately, first, before even beginning to think about having the > >> conversation to come up with solutions for it. So in many ways, the goals > >> or outcomes of this training would be to get more than a few people in > >> leadership positions within the community to gather around a shared > >> language and understanding of leadership in order to define problems > >> collectively and move forward with discussing solutions more broadly. That > >> could take so many possible forms, and be so many things, it's almost > >> impossible to sort through. > > > > I agree we need to have the conversation and come to some common > > understanding. It's not clear that a pre-defined seminar like this > > is the best forum for that sort of discussion. Our values should > > drive the discussion, rather than those of someone from outside of > > our community. > > I've participated in similar kinds of activities both at a previous > employer, and part of strategic planning for a non-profit. And in both > instances they were extremely useful. > > The thing that is extremely important and valuable about them is a > trained facilitator that has a ton of experience with groups of many > different dynamics. And, more importantly, is outside of the group > dynamic. A good trainer/facilitator knows how to get groups to go to > uncomfortable places to let them challenge themselves, but can pull them > back from spiralling into unproductive places. That is much harder than > your realize. And having professional experience there is really important.
I know leading that sort of session is difficult. Is that what ZingTrain is offering to do? My understanding from the earlier, off-list, discussion was that this was their pre-canned training seminar based on one of the books they have available, and not a customized facilitation of a discussion about our needs. Colette, can you clarify? > > I'm quite looking forward to the event regardless of the mix of > individuals there. Having it be fully OpenStack folks instead of just > being mixed in with other people showing up there there I think would be > great. > > I also think that while it's good to have a few skeptics in the mix, if > the bulk of people show up out obligation, it would definitely color the > experience for all. And seems like a less worth while adventure if that > was the case. > > -Sean > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
