On Apr 14, 2009, at 17:51, John Plocher wrote: > One thing we CAN do is make a list of the things the community needs > the OGB to help drive (outside the governance space), provide a > regular place on our agenda to invite teams to provide status, and > publish a regular progress report out to the community.
I agree with this approach, and it's the reason I've wanted to have a report-back arrangement akin to the one the Apache Board uses (for rather similar reasons). I'd like the OGB to invite each group in turn to report to the OGB, in an open meeting, what they are doing, what their success stories are and what their obstacles are. Simply flushing these things out into the daylight is probably enough to catalyse change. > In the same way that Jonathan doesn't actually stop by Jim's office > and help write networking code, the OGB can lead by defining the > vision, delegating the implementation, and keeping a spotlight on > things to highlight successes, disconnects and places where additional > community effort and contributions are needed. The best way to do all /that/ is simply to start inviting community groups to report to the OGB and to capture key goals for those groups, then track their goals with them. I'm not a fan of the OGB defining other people's work or vision - it's not our job. That's why I'm not keen on a "priority poll" - to ask the questions is to define the agenda. Our role is simply to do what no-one else in the community can can, get things going and get out of the way. S.
