Your proposal sounds good to me. On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Jim Gomes <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Tim. That is a clear and compelling reason to keep them there. > > With that clarified, does anyone have any comments on the renaming of the > pages to improve the indexing? > > Best, > Jim > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 04/09/2015 02:13 PM, Jim Gomes wrote: >> > Thanks for the explanation. That helps. >> > >> > So, I guess we could discuss the merits of keeping the Board Reports on >> our >> > wiki, as it does seem somewhat redundant. As long as they exist on the >> > wiki, it would be helpful to have a better indexing system. >> > >> > Perhaps Hiram can offer background as to the purpose and intent of the >> > Board Reports being published on the wiki? >> > >> > Best, >> > Jim >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Jim Gomes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for the link, Dan. I didn't know those were there. I think the >> >> main >> >>> difference here is that link is to the Board Minutes, whereas the >> >> ActiveMQ >> >>> wiki has the Board Report. They seem to be identical, but will they >> >> always >> >>> be? >> >> Possibly not, but it would NORMALLY be because the board has decided >> >> something should be private (like names of people being voted on or >> >> something) in which case it should likely not have been in our public >> >> version as well. Doesn't happen too often. Also, they would remove >> any >> >> "wiki formatting" type things that wouldn't look right in the text form >> >> they use. >> >> >> >> >> >>> And even if they are identical, do we still need to have the redundancy >> >>> for trace-ability? For instance, if the Board, for whatever reason, >> >> claims >> >>> they didn't receive the report, we have documentation on the wiki >> showing >> >>> the Report was produced. >> >> I don't really think the board would care if one was produced or not. >> >> It's the chair's job to make sure the board gets the report. If they >> >> don't get it, they ask the chair to report again next month. If the >> chair >> >> consistently has issues, they'd likely replace the chair. Another >> thing >> >> to keep in mind: it's the Chairs job to create the report that reflects >> >> the state of the community. The chair MAY include the wider community >> in >> >> creating that report, but that's not a requirement. Thus, saying "the >> >> community produced one, the chair didn't submit it" really wouldn't >> matter >> >> at all. >> >> >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> >> >>> That's me just trying to understand the reason for the Board Report >> >> page's >> >>> existence. >> >>> >> >>> -Jim >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> No "objection", but why don't we just delete the page and point at the >> >>>> official records: >> >>>> >> >>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/ActiveMQ.html >> >>>> >> >>>> Dan >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Jim Gomes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I recently went out to look at previous Board Reports ( >> >>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/apache-activemq-board-reports.html) and >> >> found >> >>>>> the current sorting method difficult to deal with. Unless we are >> >> required >> >>>>> to use the page naming format, I would like to change it to the >> >> following >> >>>>> format: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Apache ActiveMQ Board Report - 2009.01 January >> >>>>> Apache ActiveMQ Board Report - 2009.04 April >> >>>>> Apache ActiveMQ Board Report - 2009.07 July >> >>>>> . >> >>>>> . >> >>>>> . >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I would then set it to sort in reverse order so the most recent >> report >> >> is >> >>>>> automatically at the top, and they descend in chronological order. >> The >> >>>>> current sorting puts the most recent board report (2015/02) in the >> >> middle >> >>>>> of the pack, making it difficult to find. Good luck trying to find >> the >> >>>>> report directly prior to that. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I will make the changes, unless anyone has other suggestions. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best, >> >>>>> Jim >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Daniel Kulp >> >>>> [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog >> >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> -- >> >> Daniel Kulp >> >> [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog >> >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >> >> >> >> >> I believe that he does this as a place to create and edit them and allow >> for other members to contribute if they so desire before he submits >> them. I've edited a couple in the past prior to submission to add CMS >> or NMS release notes. >> >> -- >> Tim Bish >> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc. >> [email protected] | www.redhat.com >> twitter: @tabish121 >> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ >> >>
-- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
