incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015
Date Wed, 14 Jan 2015 19:37:37 GMT

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> 
> What does it mean to "didn't sign-off" does it mean they refused to sign-off or that
they simply didn't tick a box? Does it mean they didn't even read the report or that they
didn't tick a box?
> 
> I've said it before, I see no value in having a "naughty list" like this. What I care
about (with my Director hat on) is whether the mentors are engaged with the project.
> 
> If the IPMC wants to maintain a "didn't sign off list" for some internal management reasons
that's fine. But putting it in the public minutes of the foundation is a completely different
thing altogether (in fact it is already there, it's just that individuals names are not singled
out like this).
> 
> When the data is incorrect as this thread shows it's even more of an issue.


TL;DR "naughty list” metrics are useful and the various scenarios listed above are “red
herrings”.   General and podling specific “opaque" metrics on mentor sign-off are just
as useful and more easily digested.

Mentors who refuse to sign-off are obviously engaged and would update the report to reflect
their refusal and, likely, reasons for not signing as this would be a very notable event.
 I trust Roman to not include those mentors in the "naughty list”.

Tooling issues aside.  (If anything, the list has caused "naughty list” mentors to make
sure the report is accurate.  Frankly, I would never rescan the final report for my podlings
otherwise.) I think that it’s reasonable to expect that if a mentor read a report then they
would have ticked the box.  

Finally, it is a useful metric that provides some visibility into the amount of oversight
that’s taking place.  Sure, it’s a metric and does not provide total transparency and
understanding but it is useful never the less.

With that said, I do agree that a board report is not the appropriate venue for the Weegee
paddy wagon parade. What would be more useful and more easily digested is a general top level
opaque metric, e.g. 55% of the mentors signed off on reports, and then for each podling a
similar metric.  Anyone interested in catching me in my best herringbone wool skirt can inspect
the report at individual podling level.


Regards,
Alan


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