This isn’t the point of objection. ReMo camp hasn’t traditionally been about providing leadership training to mentors, though we did always want to include that. The main purpose of ReMo Camp has always been to review how the program is working, make sure mentors are on the same page about how processes are meant to work, and vote as a group on any new ideas or proposed changes.
Perhaps a discussion on the Reps list, from the Reps point of view would be a good idea. Which parts of ReMo camp are meant to be covered in the Leadership Summit? Obviously what I described above fits into work week territory, but I don’t believe this process is being designed to include all of the mentors in the work week.
I wanted to take the time to report back on how the feedback you gave was used for the final initiative:
Scrapped the idea of using vouches on Mozillians.org – instead went for a single Letter of Recommendation
Narrowed to pushing applicants to have a single team of focus for the All Hands.
Changed the date and location of the Leadership Summit to Jan 22-24 in Singapore.
Allowed people to choose more than 1 gathering to apply to if it makes sense, giving them an opportunity to indicate their #1 choice (a form of ranking).
Set 30% of spots for the Leadership Summit aside for emerging leaders – either a nomination process or something else TBD later in Oct/Nov.
Made the application/selection criteria for the All Hands more clearly about impact in a functional area.
Created a parallel staff nomination process for the All Hands (which will be integrated with the application to find both well known and more surprising attendees).
Emphasized a “Shoulder Tap” process for nudging people to apply, and attempted to clarify what we mean by the word and concept of leadership.
Clarified how the Leadership Summit and other pieces relate to ReMo Camps of the past.
There’s obviously some feedback that I didn’t incorporate or thought was already taken into account. Feel free to flag anything that remains a major concern.
The only difficulty I’m facing now is the single letter of reccommendation. I don’t feel like there’s a single person that I’ve worked with that can truly and honestly share their perspective of all of my work over the last few months.
I’ve been scattered too much over different departments of Mozilla
Other than that, which is probably a localised issue that I’m facing because of personal changes at Mozilla, I think you’ve made a brilliant plan and criteria for this!
Yeah, I sort of feel that way as well, but then the idea is to push members of this program to focus on a single area, so you should pick someone to write the letter who can speak most about your impact in that area, and they can probably mention your achievements in other areas as well.
