Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:56:11 -0400 > Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [...] So below we have 3 large far-reaching projects. >> >> Gentoo Quality Assurance Team >> Gentoo Infrastructure Team >> Gentoo Portage Team >> Gentoo Foundation >> Gentoo Council >> >> All 5 of these projects are active > > it's growing ;)
Doh, I wrote the e-mail and then added 2 projects ;p > >> [...] >> I request that these teams present status reports bi-weekly (thats one >> every two weeks). > > I'm not aware of the issue that sparked this, but if regular reports are > a solution, I suggest that rather than mandating a bi-weekly report, > each of the relevant projects should propose a reporting schedule that > is appropriate to them. > > For example, the Council meets once a month, so a bi-weekly status > update seems inappropriate (half the reports are likely to be empty, > the other half a copy of the meeting minutes which we already get). > Perhaps the Foundation would be happier with a regular three- or > six-month update, with the occasional ad-hoc update as need arises. > Whatever, the point is that each project knows best how often it > ought to communicate stuff. > The bi-weekly thing was just something I arbitrarily chose, and I agree that it could be different per project. However I myself don't mind empty reports. If there is nothing to report, then there is nothing to report *shrugs*. For projects like council and foundation, that is to be expected more often than not. However if there is a pending issue I'd rather see "we are still waiting on the lawyers" or "the guy who was supposed to setup the server got an internship" or "there was a portage release last week so I've been fixing bugs for two weeks instead of working on thing X". It's a status report, it doesn't have to be lively, the point is to keep developers and users informed of what is going on in these projects. -- [email protected] mailing list
