also sprach Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> [2017-03-26 13:40 +0200]:
> (For example, it would be too early to define success/failure for "Debian
> outreachy" given that the stakeholders/budget/etc. is unclear and there
> are many people who yet to express their valuable thoughts on such a
> programme.)
I guess it depends whether you are setting goals and then work to
achieve them, or you're assessing the means available and formulate
a achievable metric as a checkpoint. Both are valid. I personally
think the latter lends itself to underperformance, while the former
obviously is no good if the goals are unreachable.
Thanks for your response, anyway. I think it'd be great to have
specific metrics attached to goals, whilst assuming a stance that
doesn't frame failure to meet metrics as bad. IMHO it's always
better to declare failure and try again than to chug along turning
a blind eye to the fact that you'll never get there.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> @martinkrafft
: :' : proud Debian developer
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"the thought of suicide is a great consolation: by means of it one
gets successfully through many a bad night."
- friedrich nietzsche
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)