>-----Original Message----- >From: Ross Gardler [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:37 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement > >I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you >surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below. > >In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet >periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets >busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions. > >I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A >projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that >point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers >important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being >said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of >the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the >home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined >during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future" >list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home >page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the >time (and still am). > >If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think >is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for >it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll >probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my >personal agenda.
I completely agree that we don't want to have an overly constrained roadmap, but I do think we need to have some consistency in general direction and what that means in terms of major milestone releases (capability, not timeframe). As you say, this can be just a set of high-level items like we have on the homepage. IMO, an updated website with a few goals and status help pull in new community members to help drive the project forward with their own agendas. > >Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy >consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed your >mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or >tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your >recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review). >If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then >post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is >good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it >back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review. >Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone >wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled >back. +1 > >In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review >policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-) > >Ross > >On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine that >we >> are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you >look >> at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has been >> very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this >> message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking for >> some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and >> haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but it's >> something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a >while >> back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people are >> too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't want >> to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we should >> feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative. >> >> My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and Rave has >> taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is understandable. >> With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some >time >> really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get done >> and bubble those to the top of the queue over the next few months. >Roadmap >> anyone? >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Chris >> >> [1] >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/rave- >dev/201210.mbox/%3CCAFNO4Hh5LH37p9dD9P=W3MGQ=HECq- >[email protected]%3E > > > >-- >Ross Gardler (@rgardler) >Programme Leader (Open Development) >OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
