Berin,
> I said in an e-mail some time back that I suspect we are are
> violently agreeing. I still believe that :>.
:-)
> Your above point exactly matches my desire. I'm not looking for what
> I call "the accountable person" to drive and lead etc. in the normal
> course of events.
> However, the 80/20 rule applies. In 80% of cases (I hope more :>),
> everything will work beautifully, the mentors will hardly ever get
> involved and all will be just peachy. The PPMC will drive everything
> and having had an accountable person will make absolutely no difference
> whatsoever.
You are talking about oversight and reporting. By ensuring that multiple
PMC members are participating on each PPMC; by instilling a sense of
responsibility and accountability in the PPMC, itself; by using the STATUS
file; and by asking for periodic reports, I believe that we can be alert for
the exceptions.
We should be designing our structure for the normal case. When an abnormal
case happens, that is when the Incubator PMC Chair can take charge to
restore normalcy (personally, or through mentors designated at that time).
But it is not uncommon that if you design rules because of exceptions, that
people come to treat them as if they also apply to the norm.
Now ... why not designate people beforehand to provide corrective action(s)?
Perhaps for the reasons that Sam is often quiet as a PMC Chair, or Greg is
very careful about which e-mail address he uses. Because they have found
that it *does* make a difference. Once you designate someone in a role, it
can be very hard for others to treat them as a peer. And I would be
expecially sensitive to that in the Incubator, where we may have a good
number of new people who may already view PMC members differently from
themselves.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
