Hey @jdcook , @sixtykeys , @sidhemraj - thanks a lot for your interesting feedback !
I agree with JD that, besides the Robot Index, we’re trying to lay the foundations of an important framework, that will hopefully enable lots of innovative product ideas to pollinate within the community.
Maybe I should clarify that the idea of the RIWG is neither to substitute nor to vampirize the talents already at work in other Working Groups, but, as mentioned by @lavi, to coordinate the community’s efforts around the Robot Index in a transparent, accountable and incentivizing manner.
As such, the Working Group format provides at the moment the most clarity to me - but it may be due to a lack of context on the way that Pods are operating, that’s why I’m happy to be educated by @afromac and @Financial-Freedom.
From an operational point of view, it seems that the Pods format is effectively compatible with the activities listed in the proposal and how WG’s currently interact (interesting comment from @sidhemraj).
But, in my mind, it raises a number of questions on other topics that have been partially covered in @lavi’s post :
- In which position does that leave the internal methodologist, both in the organization and in terms of compensation ?
- How is he / she associated with the product’s upside ?
- How do we keep track of the Pods funding ?
- What are the metrics used to evaluate their performance ?
- How is the reporting on these done ?
- Aren’t conflicts of interest likely if further internal products are managed under this structure ? (ex. : the Simple Indices Pod is currently looking at our roadmap and product pipeline, I’m naturally biased towards iRobot
)
Again, any feedback from the actual members of the Automated or Simple Indices Pods is welcome here (tagging @puniaviision & @overanalyser for PWG visibility).