On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 07:29:06PM -0700, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
> Ted
>
> Different areas or different ADs may have different needs depending on how many technologies and the crossovers.
>
> Long term training has good ROI but I also think the outcome should be a flexible and flowing process adjusted to current needs rather than a regimented one which ends up being inadequate for other areas or worse obsolete very fast because different ADs or areas have different styles.
I couldn't quite parse that.
> If ADs cycles get burn just to keep current then we are missing out on opportunities to delegate.
+1
> Imho, there are a number of volunteers in the larger community with their heart in the right place willing to help/learn but they are not solicited enough.
Or they are simply rejected by leadership without explanation.
> We should start at least with identifying what is needed to scale better or delegate in a useful manner.
+1.
I think its the classical problem of individual contributors elevated
into a management role without enough time for role training. Worsened by the fact
that it may actually be a lot of fun to overload oneself trying to be
all-knowing about whats going on.
Cheers
Toerless
> Cheers
> Padma
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jul 30, 2018, at 18:57, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 30, 2018, at 9:55 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Maybe a first stab at getting ADs more insight is to extend the
> >> shepherd questionaire and therefore get at least WG chairs to try to figure
> >> out better what the AD needs to make the right calls (or whever is the
> >> shepherd).
> >
> > That wouldn't hurt, but there's some value in having somebody who wasn't part of the process do the summary. The same reason that it's good to have someone who didn't write the spec build an implementation and try to interoperate???often someone who is in the middle of things won't realize what they are leaving out.
> >
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
