I think we agree that the decision process of attendance/waitlist wasn't ideal. It would probably be helpful for the SC to step back and do a time-bounded (1 hour) blameless post-mortem on this year's Core Sprint decisions.
While well-intentioned thought went into the decision, the outcome did make a value judgment on who should attend and who should be waitlisted.
I agree with Thomas' statement that all 57 people are worthy to attend.
Yet, it is still unclear why and how the decision was made. It leaves those who were waitlisted with no visibility into "why". If there were explicit things that were prioritized for attendance, such as JIT, free-threading, performance, and security, it would be beneficial to be upfront about it.
I shared the following with Pablo:
I'm thinking about your wonderful keynote as I write this. In the spirit of building something beautiful that lasts, here are a few things that may have helped:
- Initial email for waitlist. It was a blindside for me. It never occurred to me that we were prioritizing mentee attendance over core team attendance. As far as I know this is new. While I agree, it is a good thing; it was unexpected to me.
- Not enough transparency on what the decision critieria was. I can sympathize with the many hours that the SC spent, and as Thomas says "it was a big tetris" puzzle. However, this doesn't fully explain what was prioritized. For example, it would have been much easier to swallow the news if the SC stated we prioritized individuals (and mentees) working on "JIT", "Free-threading", "performance" and "security". That would give clarity which frankly has yet to be communicated.
- By withholding the list of attendees, the SC is adding to the mystery. It would have been nice to have been trusted that I, and others, could celebrate who was being mentored as well as the projects being worked on.
I also shared thoughts about "non-technical" with a couple of SC members.
Thanks for considering this request, and I assume you were planning to discuss the outcome as part of your SC meeting as well.
I think we agree that the decision process of attendance/waitlist wasn't ideal. It would probably be helpful for the SC to step back and do a time-bounded (1 hour) blameless post-mortem on this year's Core Sprint decisions.
While well-intentioned thought went into the decision, the outcome did make a value judgment on who should attend and who should be waitlisted.
I agree with Thomas' statement that all 57 people are worthy to attend.
Yet, it is still unclear why and how the decision was made. It leaves those who were waitlisted with no visibility into "why". If there were explicit things that were prioritized for attendance, such as JIT, free-threading, performance, and security, it would be beneficial to be upfront about it.
I shared the following with Pablo:
I also shared thoughts about "non-technical" with a couple of SC members.
Thanks for considering this request, and I assume you were planning to discuss the outcome as part of your SC meeting as well.