Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:56:11 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | I request that these teams present status reports bi-weekly (thats one > | every two weeks). You don't even have to write the reports, I will > | volunteer to bug you every two weeks about what is going on in your > | project and you can just drop a few words. I will author the report > | for you and post it to dev (if you wish for me to do so). > > Bringing up something I proposed previously... How about having teams > that are considered 'important' (not a fixed list; this can vary > depending upon what's going on) or 'to be having issues' deliver status > reports to the council for their monthly meeting? >
admittedly, my list is basically this, except of course who chooses which teams are 'having issues' is rather arbitrary :) For the original list of 5 I picked large projects that all impact other portions of gentoo and have relatively little in-tree presence, meaning most people don't notice progress even if it is made (since most progress is internal to the project itself). Portage, Infra, and Trustees all have outstanding communication issues, QA has no lead and as far as most devs know doesn't do much (outside of mr_bones and arch teams which kind of fall under this, and treecleaners, although we too have been silent lately), Council I think I added because it just doesn't do much in general; and it is my feeling that it should do more, although seemant pointed out that the case against the council issuing reports is rather weak. The problem with them delivering is that many would probably just not show up. In the current scheme there are no consequences for this and people are admittedly busy. This is why I volunteered to inte^H^H^H^H nudge the teams in question for data. If the council wishes for the information to be presented during meetings I can probably wing that. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
