Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-Status

[Alec Warner]

Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:56:11 -0400
> Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
>
>> [...] So below we have 3 large far-reaching projects.
>>
>> Gentoo Quality Assurance Team
>> Gentoo Infrastructure Team
>> Gentoo Portage Team
>> Gentoo Foundation
>> Gentoo Council
>>
>> All 5 of these projects are active
>
> it's growing ;)

Doh, I wrote the e-mail and then added 2 projects ;p
>
>> [...]
>> I request that these teams present status reports bi-weekly (thats one
>> every two weeks).
>
> I'm not aware of the issue that sparked this, but if regular reports are
> a solution, I suggest that rather than mandating a bi-weekly report,
> each of the relevant projects should propose a reporting schedule that
> is appropriate to them.
>
> For example, the Council meets once a month, so a bi-weekly status
> update seems inappropriate (half the reports are likely to be empty,
> the other half a copy of the meeting minutes which we already get).
> Perhaps the Foundation would be happier with a regular three- or
> six-month update, with the occasional ad-hoc update as need arises.
> Whatever, the point is that each project knows best how often it
> ought to communicate stuff.
>

The bi-weekly thing was just something I arbitrarily chose, and I agree
that it could be different per project.

However I myself don't mind empty reports.  If there is nothing to
report, then there is nothing to report *shrugs*.  For projects like
council and foundation, that is to be expected more often than not.

However if there is a pending issue I'd rather see "we are still waiting
on the lawyers" or "the guy who was supposed to setup the server got an
internship" or "there was a portage release last week so I've been
fixing bugs for two weeks instead of working on thing X".

It's a status report, it doesn't have to be lively, the point is to keep
developers and users informed of what is going on in these projects.

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list