Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 21 October 2015 at 17:54, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:29 PM, sebb wrote: >> On 21 October 2015 at 13:27, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger >>> wrote:

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 21 October 2015 at 18:21, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > On 10/20/2015 06:22 PM, sebb wrote: >>> >>> >My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The >>> >'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The >>> > information in >> >> What else should

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote: > The LDAP group is used for granting karma, not for determining PMC > membership. That is simply not necessarily true Sebb. There are two LDAP groups per TLP/PMC. ou=groups,cn=httpd and ou=pmc,ou=groups,cn=httpd - there are even groups that

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 22 October 2015 at 11:29, Tony Stevenson wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote: > >> The LDAP group is used for granting karma, not for determining PMC >> membership. > > That is simply not necessarily true Sebb. What is not true? The LDAP committee group

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 21 October 2015 at 13:27, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote: >> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave >> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms. >> >> Show the

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:29 PM, sebb wrote: > On 21 October 2015 at 13:27, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger >> wrote: >>> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 21 October 2015 at 12:52, Mike Kienenberger wrote: > Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave > a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms. > > Show the current count of the PMC members and committers. > Show the last PMC addition and

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

I hadn't realized that the template section was different from the top part. Sorry for not scrolling down. Current: == ## PMC changes (from committee-info.txt): - Currently 40 PMC members. - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months - Last PMC addition was Paul

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 10/20/2015 06:22 PM, sebb wrote: >My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The >'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The information in What else should it be called? It's not the same as the PMC. Sure, it is. If it's not, then something is

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Yay to that! Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:27, Sam Ruby wrote: > > I'm working slowly on making the roster tool read/write so that it can > be used instead of the Perl scripts and editing committee-info.txt > directly. The idea is that adding an existing

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms. Show the current count of the PMC members and committers. Show the last PMC addition and date. Show the last committer addition and date. That's also all I'm looking for

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote: > Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave > a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms. > > Show the current count of the PMC members and committers. > Show the last PMC addition

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 19 October 2015 at 17:37, sebb wrote: > On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb wrote: >>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote: On Mon, Oct 19,

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation after my first one. Not sure what happened there ... My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The 'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The information in there is useful, but it's

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 20 October 2015 at 21:23, Rich Bowen wrote: > Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation after > my first one. Not sure what happened there ... > > My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The > 'committee group' phrasing

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb wrote: > On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: >> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the >> LDAP part: this only adds confusion > > That's not what I am suggesting. >

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the > LDAP part: this only adds confusion That's not what I am suggesting. > adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb wrote: >> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: >>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the >>>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb wrote: > On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb wrote: >>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: ok, if you

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb wrote: >> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb wrote: On 19 October

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

> -- cut here -- > ## PMC changes: > > - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt. > - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months > - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015 > > ## LDAP unix group changes: > > - Currently 44 members > - Radu

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: >> -- cut here -- >> ## PMC changes: >> >> - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt. >> - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months >> - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the LDAP part: this only adds confusion adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy to know which are the few TLPs

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > from my understanding: > - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (= golden > source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt. The LDAP committee

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

from my understanding: - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (= golden source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group then instead of displaying: * PMC from committee-info * LDAP info: PMC + committers it would be easier to

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

The app currently says for OODT: -- cut here -- ## PMC changes: - Currently 42 PMC members. - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015 - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members. - Radu Manole was added to the

[reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project membership might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of actually generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses me Every Single Time. Viz: ## PMC changes: - Currently 10 PMC members. -

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and that no one will object to improvement. Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > Although I acknowledge

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits wrote: > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and that no > one will object to improvement. I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership. The two are completely distinct (although