incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Thoughts about formalizing the role of shepherd
Date Mon, 14 Jan 2013 07:03:39 GMT
On Jan 13, 2013 11:46 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
> Next down are the 'vice-chairs', currently known as the shepherds.
> Each of these people is responsible for a group of projects, dispersed
> across the reporting cycle. The shepherd, at least, tunes into the
> reports, but also checks in during the three-month reporting period --
> particularly if we have identified issues that the project needs to
> address.

When I came up with the shepherd process for the Board, I specifically made
the assignments random. This was to prevent a Director from becoming
accustomed/lazy with their assignment, and to ensure that Directors
eventually get detailed insight to *all* projects. It also ensured that
Directors *had* to engage at some level with report reviewing (I felt some
Directors attended meetings without any reviewing; the shepherding helped
to involve them more fully).

Now, I'm not saying the two are the same. They share a name, and some
general concepts, but the Incubator operates very differently. I do think
the Incubator can reuse the idea of "somebody assigned to review in detail"
rather than a normal cursory review.

Anyway, I hope this background helps.

Cheers,
-g

ps. of course, randomization also meant some sucker wasn't saddled with
being the Incubator shepherd for life; it's a hard/lengthy review...

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message