I'm a little concerned that we're discussing removing communities without talking to the listed community leaders (or has this happened in the background?).
I think many of the leaders would either support merging their content with other communities or accept help in reinvigorating their communities. On a related note: I started talking to a few community facilitators about the state of their communities after seeing the initial message and it seems that we may have an education problem with a number of the communities. I found folks who weren't aware of the contributor grant process and other general OpenSolaris governance activities. I believe there was talk at one time of creating an alias for all the community facilitators to share governance information and provide tips and best practices for increasing their community activity. Was an alias ever created? Didn't see any response to our offer of providing an overall view of the community statistics... Is the OGB interested in that data? Lynn On 07/14/09 18:13, Michelle Olson wrote: > On 07/13/09 12:52, Peter Tribble wrote: >> I took an AI at the last meeting but one to go back and see where we had >> got to with regards to defunct communities. >> >> While there has been some discussion, and John Plocher has some >> bugs in bugzilla about detailed reorganizations of the community, I >> suspect >> it's easier to start over. >> >> I went through all the communities listed >> >> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/communities/#portal >> >> and made the following notes. Of 48 communities, 30 appear active; the >> remaining 18 are listed below. >> >> Note that I'm basing my interpretation on the state of the community web >> pages and mailing lists/fora. >> > I'm not sure about the criteria, have you been subscribed to the > lists, or are you looking at the jive forums? > >> Academic and Research >> - Doesn't appear to be terribly active >> - But has recent CC grants >> > > Documents on the edu pages are still comparatively quite popular > according to download metrics. > >> Accessibility >> - low-level activity >> >> Appliances >> - low level activity >> - No CC grants >> >> Approachability >> - Forum link broken >> - Looks pretty dead to me; probably subsumed by other projects >> - All CC grants have expired >> >> BrandZ >> - really ought to be a zones project >> - All CC grants have expired >> > > I think someone else answered this. And for Ed's question about how to > migrate the pages, I think a simple copy/paste over to new pages on > the Zones community is a fine approach. > >> Chinese Users >> - Forum link broken >> - Can't even find a mailing list >> - No CC grants >> - Looks pretty dead to me >> > > Agreed. > >> CAB >> - defunct archive >> > > We just had email on ogb about this recently, we want to keep the > pages, but indicate that they are for historical info only. > >> Databases >> - low level activity >> - No CC grants >> > > We have a new facilitator (James Gates) for the database group who is > just getting started, see the active facilitators table and > facilitation-discuss for his thread. > >> Emerging Platforms >> - low level activity >> > > This is a newer community. > >> Fault Management >> - mid level activity >> - But new CC grants >> >> Games >> - low level activity >> - No CC grants >> >> HPC >> - low level activity >> - No CC grants >> > > We have a new facilitator, Bruce Rothermal, who is just getting started. > >> MDB >> - mid level activity >> - Renewed all the CC grants this year >> >> Observability >> - low level activity >> - No CC grants >> >> Printing >> - mid level activity >> - All CC grants expired >> > > We have a new facilitator, Juanita Heieck, who is just getting started. > >> PowerPC >> - low level activity >> - Only one CC >> >> SVM >> - almost defunct >> - No CC grants >> >> UFS >> - low level activity >> (not all ufs related) >> - No CC grants >> >> There's a certain level of opinion in the above description. I >> apologise if I've mischaracterized any communities - but if I >> have then those communities need to be more obviously active. >> > > I disagree with you slightly here, because I think, for example, > Printing is obviously active based on the mailing list activity. I am > subscribed to all the CG mailing lists, so my view of 'activity' is > probably far different if you are basing this on the jive forums > (which often don't include all the mail). > >> So as a possible summary, on which other may wish to comment. >> (Some of these communities I've had involvement with, others not.) >> >> Of the above, the following are possibly good >> >> Academic and Research >> Accessibility >> Fault Management >> MDB >> >> > IMO, all of these are definitely good. > >> whereas the following look to be candidates for removal: >> >> Appliances (distribution related, oe JeOS?) >> Approachability (definitely) >> BrandZ (become a zones project?) >> Chinese Users (Internationalization or advocacy?) >> Databases (or get more active - or are the individual databases the >> right level?) >> Games >> HPC >> PowerPC (put into Emerging platforms?) >> Printing (can't think where else to put it) >> SVM (definitely) >> UFS (definitely) >> > > I would agree (as we have casually in our recent meetings) that > Approachability, SVM, and UFS are good candidates for cleanup. I would > also put Chinese Users in that category based on anecdotal data from > the tonic team about the history of the CU CG. Thanks for reviewing > this and sending it around. > > Thanks, > Michelle > >> and the following need to get more active: >> >> Emerging Platforms (growth area, incorporating PowerPC?) >> Observability (structurally ought to be a community, but projects >> in that space like dtrace, mdb, fma, ... are strong) >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
