This started out on ComDev, but I think it possibly belongs more properly on Site-Dev.
I've written up how board meetings work (you can see a version at http://www.nerdchic.net/hiw-board.html - I'll get it into proper XML before I post of course!), at Greg's suggestion. I'd like to do a whole series of "How it works" (Hen came up with a list at some point - "for Users", "for Developers", "for Lawyers", etc, etc - and I have a few other ideas for encouraging contributions/"How it works for writers/designers/" etc stuff). To that end, I'd suggest making a foundation/101/ directory, and putting this in there, then linking it from the existing "How it works" in the left nav. We can work out later if/whether/how to restructure the existing content. Please let me know if you have any additional edits to the content, or you think it belongs somewhere else in the docs :-) Thanks! Noirin On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Noirin Shirley <noi...@apache.org> wrote: > 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] >> >
