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)