My version (envisaged as an additional page as part of the "How it works" series) is at http://www.nerdchic.net/hiw-board.html
I assume apsite is RTC? :-) N On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org> wrote: > This is great Greg. I'll do something sensible with it once I get some free > cycles (unless someone bears me of course) > > Sent from my mobile device. > > On 18 Jun 2010, at 23:14, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi ComDev! >> >> A couple days ago, I wrote a message to somebody describing some of >> the process that the Board uses for its meetings. I thought this may >> be a helpful start for you guys to write about "How the Board Works". >> >> I've snipped/summarized commentary from the other person, but left in >> my text in full (minus a couple snipped references). >> >> I hope this helps! >> >> Cheers, >> -g >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> [snip: noting that board@ is a "fire hose" of mail leading up to Board >> meetings] >> >> The authoritative document is the agenda in Subversion. For years now, >> I don't actually track the mailing list, but just peruse the agenda a >> day or two before the meeting. Thus the "fire hose" is not something >> that bothers me. >> >> Those emails *are* there, however, for the people who subscribe to >> board@ but may not want to review the agenda. They can pick/choose >> reports as they come in. Many other people watch for comments the >> Directors make in the agenda (in Subversion) and will respond to those >> comments (in the agenda, or on the mailing list). >> >> This is one reason we ask the VPs to put [REPORT} in the subject line: >> I know they are redundant with the agenda, and can "safely" be >> ignored. I just look for people responding to them, or for other email >> threads to start. >> >> [snip: other boards' process] >> >> Yes. This would be equivalent to reviewing the agenda file in >> Subversion a few days in advance. In fact, we tell all PMCs to get >> their reports in 48 hours before the meeting for *precisely* this >> review aspect. >> >> [snip: report submission process] >> >> In our case, you forward it to board@ [...]. If you have >> Subversion access, then you'd also copy it into the agenda. If you do >> not, then another Director will eventually see that and copy it into >> the agenda. >> >> [snip: reviewing agenda to prepare comments] >> >> Yup. And we put the comments *into* the agenda (clearly delineated; >> [...]). That way, all the >> Directors can see/respond to them *before* the meeting, rather than >> worry about needing to keep personal notes during the meeting and >> raising them at the appropriate time (and, thus, giving no prep time >> for other Directors about the comments that will be raised). >> >> [snip: minutes at next meeting] >> >> We sometimes don't get the minutes in time for the *next* meeting (we >> are volunteers), but they pretty much unfailingly show up for the one >> after that. We then approve them, and they get published. >> >> [snip] >> >> I think it is simply that our workflow has not been apparent. [...] >> >> The agenda this month covered over 50 reports and was more than 3000 >> lines long. Having the agenda in version control, where we can >> cooperatively expand on it, review it, and comment on it, *before* the >> meeting greatly reduces the time-cost of the meeting. We covered that >> *entire* agenda in a mere 70 minutes. And the amount of >> review/coverage is much more than you'd expect. The Directors are >> reviewing all of that over the couple days leading up the meeting, so >> that 70 minutes is just the parts which require vocal discussion. >> >> [snip] >
