incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:24:31 GMT
It doesn't need to be in the public report.

I agree the shepherd model doesn't work here but I still maintain that doesn't mean it can't

Accountability, responsibility and reward are what I believe are needed. I've made my suggestions
as to how to provide all three

Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Marvin Humphrey<>
Sent: ‎1/‎22/‎2015 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Ted Dunning <> wrote:

> If you would like to characterize shepherds as cross-cutting
> mentors-at-large, I wouldn't disagree.

It's costly to produce such cross-cutting commentary.  Because the product
ends up in the public report, it's risky to be candid -- recall the
Drill shepherd review that raised objections: <>.
Shepherds can diminish the risk either by spending more time gathering
information, raising the cost, or by being more circumspect, diminishing the
review's usefulness.  Both choices are suboptimal.

In any case, the Incubator struggles to get consistent shepherd participation.
While the fact that Incubator shepherds are less accountable than Board
members might keep participation under 100% any given month, my guess is that
the main reason the number is under 50% and trending downward is cost/benefit
ratio -- shepherds are making a rational choice to occupy themselves with
tasks they perceive as less arduous and/or more rewarding.

Maybe the time will come to revisit this issue if shepherd participation
flatlines, though that's not a very satisfying outcome...

Marvin Humphrey

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

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