On Wed, January 2, 2013 7:49 pm, Andrew Cowie wrote: > On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 23:53 +0000, Juanjo MarÃn wrote: > >> I personally think that the major drawback is that there is a mismatch >> between the quarterly reports and our release scheme. > > Rather than being a PR exercise, the quarterly report could be recast > as, alternately, a formal progress report ~2 months before release > (highlighting areas of urgent concern), and then a review ~1 month after > (observing what worked and what didn't in well enough time to make > adjustments next cycle). > > We have a lot of structure in our release process, but defined occasions > to discuss progress might be a good addition.
I love the idea of tying the reports to our release cycle. Some areas, like events, don't fall on this cycle, but so long as there is a concrete cycle to compile this information I think it doesn't really matter. Quarterly reports as we've had them have often been confusing timing-wise anyway since the Foundation's fiscal year is not the same as the calendar year. I've found the quarterly reports very useful in my work for pulling together information quickly to provide to others across the different parts of GNOME, so I'd really love to see them continue. If bringing them closer to the release schedule makes more sense and has the potential to make them more useful, then we should do it! karen _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
