Simon Phipps wrote: > I received this input privately from a community member who usually > prefers not to be drawn in to governance discussions. I thought it was > worth passing on and do so with permission. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *Date: *April 15, 2009 00:54:27 GMT+02:00 >> *To: *Simon Phipps <webmink at Sun.COM <mailto:webmink at Sun.COM>> >> *Subject: **Re: [ogb-discuss] Community priority poll* >> >> [off-list] >> >> Simon Phipps wrote: >> >>> Right. The Apache Board provides a template and timetable so that >>> this is not a volunteer sport for egos but a report-back for >>> projects. I don't think they actually have someone show up at the >>> meeting though - they just publish reports. My concern about >>> starting that way is it creates a work item that will be unwelcome >>> and, frankly, ignored. So we get work item reports from extroverts. >>> That's better than nothing, or than imposing our own view, surely? >> >> You could always make new grants and extension of existing ones >> contingent on receiving (say 6-monthly) reports, or perhaps make the >> ability to create new projects dependent on progress reports for the >> existing ones? I suspect the reporting requirements for CGs vs >> Projects vs UGs might be different, but the principles should be the >> same. >> >> And so the OGB doesn't get swamped, making Projects roll up into >> their sponsoring CG would probably be a good idea. That does of >> course suggest that the current situation where multiple CGs sponsor >> a single Project would have to change from a N:N to a 1:N >> relationship, but from observation the multiple sponsors thing >> doesn't work well anyway. >> >> I think it is right & proper that the OGB monitors what the community >> does - that's *not* the same as controlling it - because the overall >> community needs a central 'clearing house'. For example, which >> projects are moribund and need pruning? Which CGs are growing? >> Where is most new work being done? At the moment we have no real >> way of knowing - and that's important not only from an overall >> community perspective but from an operational point of view.
We have two examples of reports (any more?) from last year, Advocacy and Storage: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2008-July/005786.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2008-July/005788.html I found the exercise helpful since at the time Advocacy had just completed some big website migration projects for the UGs so it was good to summarize things in a quick one-pager to keep track of what we did. I`ve sent these links to people at Sun as they plan for future projects related to Advocacy, so having the history is helpful to others as well. I`ll put the report on Advocacy somewhere as we prepare to write the next one in June. Jim
