On 17/04/2009, at 10:06 AM, Peter Tribble wrote: >> 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. > > While I agree, that's only up to a point. I think that such a report- > back > arrangement won't work well. For one thing, in reality most groups and > their members already have formal reporting structures (the ones that > work for Sun, anyway). So we're asking them to duplicate reporting to > a body that really isn't in their reporting chain. > > Not only that, there are a lot of groups. Getting a full report out > of each > group could tie up the OGB for months. > > That's why I suggested a very lightweight reporting mechanism. Zero > effort > so doesn't waste any time, but should be enough to flush out groups > that > are truly defunct, and offers an opportunity for problems to be > raised.
I agree with Peter to some extents. The best projects and communities are the ones who are highlighting what they do on a regular basis, and they stand the best chance of encouraging new contributions. I don't think it's worthwhile trying to push for artificially forcing that - encouraging it, sure, but we'd all rather be just doing it rather than talking about it. I've not had first hand experience of how well it works with Apache however. Glynn
