| 1 |
On 01/19/17 17:50, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> I am suggesting projects should have a mandatory requirement to provide |
| 3 |
> monthly status. If they meet, they have this already in any minutes or log. |
| 4 |
> May require a summation. If they do not meet, someone can gather the info up |
| 5 |
> to each project/team. It would take considerably less time for someone on the |
| 6 |
> project/team to provide a summary. Than for another person to come poll each |
| 7 |
> person in the team for the same information. It will take less time to come |
| 8 |
> from within. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I am not suggesting or discussing penalties. I would simply hope that saying |
| 11 |
> something is mandatory. People understanding it has VERY minimal requirements |
| 12 |
> and overhead. That they would understand the benefit and be onboard so its not |
| 13 |
> a big deal. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> No reason to make it into a big deal and go off on punishment, etc. I hate |
| 16 |
> that line of thinking. I rather people understand the benefits and partake |
| 17 |
> because of such. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Just to point out, part of, why people are interpreting this as they |
| 20 |
are: you frame it as a requirement, even a "mandatory requirement", |
| 21 |
without specifying what recourse, if any, there is if such requirements |
| 22 |
are not met. This implicitly leaves the default mechanisms in place, as |
| 23 |
has been discussed elsewhere. A requirement with no enforcement, |
| 24 |
especially one which explicitly avoids enforcement is a suggestion, or |
| 25 |
request, not a requirement. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Not that I find no other faults with the proposal as a whole. |
Archives