Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Separating out [VOTE] and maybe even [DISCUSS] threads related to
[VOTE]s and/or lazy consensus should be possible.  I will look into
that as a refinement in future reports.

I would save you some hours and rely on easy indicators and on a clear goal: full transparency (let me say, once again, that private traffic does not contain any important discussions or decisions, but still I appreciate that we commit to showing it).

So, from my mailbox data (and they might be slightly imprecise but we do not want absolute precision here): the private list accounts for 20% of the traffic of English OpenOffice lists in the period considered (1 January to 31 July 2015). I obviously excluded the issues@ and commits@ list, and I excluded all native-language lists.

20% is high. OK, we had three Chair elections so far in 2015, PMC additions and several committer invitations; and the press and trademark inquiries are numerous. But still 20% is high.

Thank you Dennis for the numbers, and now the focus should be on how we can improve them and explain them.

Improve: we can aim at reducing that number to be below 20%, and to keep your other absolute numbers under control too (while other indicators, such as the thread length, do not add value and add work, and are not meaningful to me at least).

Explain: I would appreciate to see a paragraph in the quarterly report about how (not numbers: topics) the private list was used in the previous reporting period (so: October 2015 Report contains a report about private activity in April-May-June). Five lines, saying what was discussed there, without revealing any specific details; and saying whether action was taken to move interesting conversations to the dev list (which happens quite often). I suspect that this is more interesting, to the community and the Board, than having better numbers without context.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to