On May 2, 2012 8:10 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >... > I don't imagine the "bucketing" to be enshrined in written process, or > even be fixed. More of a convenience. We might do it by, for example, > asking Shepherds to identify the projects they would *prefer* to > shepherd and why. To continue my example above I might say "I have an > interest in any social related podling so I would prefer to shepherd > Wave which is one such project I'm not a mentor on". Someone else > might say "I'm really interested in communications protocols and so I > will shepherd Wave". > > I'm not suggesting formality, just a semblance of structure. I think > the best way to proceed is to get out list of shepherds, do a couple > of months and then discuss whether this proposed next step will add > anything to the process. My goal is to have more cross-community > awareness in the incubator projects as I've observed that those > projects that have someone actively seeking relationships tend to > build critical mass sooner. My proposed approach is only one thing > that might help in this regard.
Stated interests, and cross-community awareness are at odds with each other. The Board randomly assigns shepherds to the reports, *specifically* to ensure Directors get a wider view of the org, and to avoid falling into some kind of blinders/rut with reviewing the same project repeatedly. (and no, I'm not volunteering; I read them all already, along with 40 more reports... :-P) Cheers, -g
