renaming makes sense to me. On 9 Apr 2015 19:44, "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/ > > > > >
