On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Matthew Miller
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:30:38AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> We did this last year. It didn't really pan out well. Whether
> >> because of the themes that were set or something else, I have no idea.
> > For whatever reason, we basically got those themes by accident. I
> No we didn't. Come on, that's trying to hand-wave away the lack of
> buy-in we got on the themes.
Oh, no, I mean the same thing you are saying. We didn't get them
because people were super-enthusiastic about them, we got them because
people were like, "sure, sounds good" — not a lot of buy-in, as you
> They weren't bad. They were tied to existing Objectives. People just
> didn't go with it. We did exactly what Brian is proposing and it
> failed. We need to figure out why, not just do it again and hope it
> works better.
We've basically had this problem around the Objectives idea in general.
I was expecting we'd have more than we could deal with and would have
to choose, rather than the current state.
Agreed. I'd add that for those we do have currently, there hasn't
been much in the way of publicity or communication outside the group
doing that Objective. We need to get better about that as well.
Perhaps if others "see" more of how an Objective goes from a proposal
to completion it might encourage more submissions.