incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Johnson <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Mandatory podling exit interviews
Date Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:02:39 GMT
Part of how best to handle this is to remind people, when they're 
complaining, to keep two things in mind:

a) only state the behavior you observed/read/witnessed, and be specific, 
rather than using generalizations such as "always", or "never."

b) Keep to "I" statements. As silly as the template may be:

I ______ when you _____, because _______.  (and variants thereof).

As in:

"I felt like our podling was ignored by one of our mentors, because he 
only voted for one of the seven releases that we did."

-- or --

"I got frustrated whenever I had to send an email to "general", because 
it usually generated a long email thread, and only one or two responses 
directly addressed my problem."

Doing the above will do much to reduce possible contention.

Perhaps add the above to the "what to expect" introduction to the incubator?


On 6/21/13 5:52 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Upayavira <> wrote:
>> As in any such survey, author identity should be optional. Sometimes it
>> can be deduced, but not always, and if someone would rather not mention
>> their name, we should give them that opportunity.
> "Sometimes" preserving anonymity is not good enough.  It would be
> irresponsible of us to solicit candid feedback when identity will be revealed
> "sometimes".
> If respondents state that they would prefer to remain anonymous, at the very
> least we must limit publication of any natural language responses to
> private@incubator -- which would be unfortunate because it shunts discussion
> that ought to take place in public onto a private list.  Furthermore, we
> should tell them outright that they are fooling themselves if they think no
> IPMC members will be able to guess who they are.
> I'm not even sure we can realistically preserve anonymity for "scale of 1 to
> 10", multiple choice, true/false and so on given the very limited pool of
> potential respondents.  We're going to have to think really hard about what we
> ask and what we publish -- and if we try hard to scrub and fail, I'm going to
> feel really bad.
> Nevertheless, if an "anonymous" option that can only be discussed privately is
> the price of consensus, I'm still on board.  It's better than nothing.
> Marvin Humphrey
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message