Thanks for the feedback, everyone. It looks like there's no technical reason for the current naming scheme. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't breaking some kind of formatting requirement from the Board.
I'll get them fixed up shortly. Best, Jim On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ > > > > > > > > >
