Proposal : Robot Index Working Group (RIWG) - **Temperature Check poll added**

Hey @jdcook, thanks a lot for the time and effort you’ve spent to “digest” this long conversation, and for your constructive approach to what a compromise could look like.

I can hear your thinking, and see that this proposal has raised quite a lot of questions which is good and will eventually help us moving forward.

With the latest developments on the technical side for iRobot, I don’t think we should aim to rush into a last minute hybrid solution, and I would like to use this opportunity to at least propose a temperature check in the community to see how opinions crystallize around this discussion. Thanks again !


Hey @gregdocter, thanks a lot for your questions and your constructive approach ! Please find some feedback below :

This wouldn’t impact iRobot’s growth, I think mainly for 2 reasons :

  • A lot of work has gone and is still going into the project, which I support mostly on my own in parallel with my current occupation. I have personally never felt more committed to making it a success once this long incubation phase is finished. I also feel no particular lack of capacity to support all parts of the methodologist role, for a methodology I have spent so much time developing.
  • The ability of the Coop to support any kind of product in the best possible way has never been questioned either, and I’m properly stoked by the energy that this proposal has gathered in the community already.

Yes, that is the correct interpretation of the proposed system.

The more this discussion progresses, the more I see the RIWG as the 1st opportunity to iterate on some kind of accelerator for internal products.

We could draw a parallel with the Work Team’s analogy of iRobot to an early self-driving car (kudos to @Metfanmike :blush:): I believe a Working Group or Pod structure could help making iRobot’s transition towards a flagship self-driving limousine smoother and quicker, by rolling out the strategies / tools developed by the established WG’s and shaping them around this particular concept.

There might be additional options to avoid extended overlap with the relevant WG’s, or creating a new WG for the incubation of each new internal project : for example, after 1 or 2 iterations, a new community methodologist could take over the hot seat, and the WG be structured around a new product.


Dear owls, as mentioned last week and following the IIP-85 guidelines, I just added a Temperature Check poll to understand how opinions crystallize in the community around this discussion. Thanks in advance for your participation !


[My perspective is from PWG, as we seek to coordinate, launch and maintain a growing number of products.]

I generally agree overall with Matt’s summary, and like the initiative of seeking to solve incentives for internal methodologists (this is an importnat topic), but

  1. don’t see why Index should be funding methodologists outside of the existing fee split and methodologist incentives
  2. flag the communication overhead of the existing pods and working groups, and don’t see how adding another pod doesn’t make this worse

Let me know if these concerns aren’t well founded.

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback @Cavalier_Eth !

Given the results of the temperature check above, and the fact that iRobot won’t pass DG2 before the current Funding Council Grant is voted, I prefer not to compromise the outcome of the DG2 vote because of this WG proposal, and to look for the best possible integration within the existing structure in the coming weeks.