incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
Date Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:45:02 GMT
I think what we really should discuss is how the IPMC can help podlings in as simple a way
as possible.

I think we are looking for people in the IPMC who are willing to help podlings solved their
real and their perceived problems. An Ombudsman is one title for someone like that  and so
is Shepherd.

I think that there exists an ever changing group within the IPMC that in their own serves
this function. These people meet at private@.

Why can't a PPMC go to private@ with any issue and then someone can take care of it?

If the complaint is that the group is too large and will debate it endlessly then the solution
would be to have a smaller group with their own list - make these people Shepherd / Ombudsmen
/ Lieutenants / Watchdogs - let them lean in on reports and respond to "situations" discretely.
Let their report be a private addition for the board report.


On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> Cmon folks, all we're looking for is an email alias and
> a descriptive title.  That's not *overhead* any more than
> Greg's novel position as Vice Chair is *overhead* to the
> board.  A title doesn't an officer make, there is no need
> to imbue Incubator Ombudsman with any power whatsoever,
> not even the power to compel people to take their work
> seriously.  I wish we could get to reasonable objections
> for this role instead of gut reactions about its perceived
> optics.
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Marvin Humphrey <>
>> To:
>> Cc: 
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 6:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J)
>> <> wrote:
>>> I'm not in favor of an Ombudsman. Seems like an extra
>>> layer of overhead beyond what the Chair already provides. Seriously
>>> does someone need a title in order to be the clearinghouse for folks'
>>> honest assessments of the Incubator, its personnel, or other sensitive
>>> issues?
>> We could really do a much better job of gathering feedback, both solicited and
>> unsolicited.
>> I'm sensitive to the argument against layering on bureaucracy and 
>> complexity.
>> As with public APIs, it is often more difficult to remove stuff later than it
>> was to add it.
>> Maybe we should focus first on the service of exit interviews, rather than on
>> the creation of a new title?  We should be able to do a decent job
>> administering exit interviews with existing personnel.  The option to expand
>> -- or not -- will always be available later, should the initiative prove
>> successful.
>> Marvin Humphrey
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message