On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Michelle Olson <michelle.olson at sun.com> wrote: >> * OGB 2008/004 Proposal on the logistics of Regular meetings of the OGB >> >> Needs revision. Clearly, the day and time aren't right. > > Agreed, I've updated this policy and associated OGB pages with the current > day and time. > >> The requirement for audio >> recordings needs consideration. And the agenda handling needs work >> (see next policy). >> > > Agreed, I propose the following rewrite: > > Any OpenSolaris Member may submit items for the agenda between meetings by > adding it to the genunix wiki page for the associated meeting, by request to > any OGB member, by posting an agenda item request to ogb-discuss, or by > request at the beginning of any OGB concall.
I've created a new page for 2009/003 http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OGB_2009/003 to capture this proposal and Simon's modification. I've added another version of the proposal: Any OpenSolaris Member may submit items for future agendas between meetings by request to any OGB member or the OGB secretary, or by posting an agenda item request to ogb-discuss. OGB Members or the OGB secretary may add any item on the "future agenda items" list to the agenda template for the next meeting at any time before the meeting commences. As I think it unwise to suggest that it's a good thing for any member of the community to update what is an OGB procedural document. And a request to the secretary seems valid, although I would prefer to see all requests made openly to the alias. This doesn't really cover the addition of the main discussion items by OGB members, though, so there's a little gap. I've also added a suggestion for improving the structure of the agenda, which I believe is important now we're accepting items for it more freely. >> * OGB 2008/005 Proposal on OGB activity/issue naming, tracking and >> archival >> >> Need a new policy for 2009, as this one is explicitly for 2008. First >> question: do we >> continue to use bugzilla as the primary source? > > I propose that we rescind this policy and continue to use the wiki agenda to > structure our concall. > >> If so, then we can >> probably take this >> policy as is. If not, we need to start over. The advantage of bugzilla >> is that it essentially >> autogenerates the agenda for us. The use of bugzilla seemed to drop >> off - for example, >> this year we didn't have bugs raised for election candidates that I'm >> aware of. >> > > I used the ogb category in bugzilla to file all the grant renewals because > they happened on so many different lists and warranted use of a tracking > system because I didn't want to make a mistake and needed a clear record of > grant requests and the dates I added them (in case I did make a mistake, > which I did). But, I didn't need bugzilla to manage the agenda and AIs. Yes. Looking at it, having 2008/004 and 2008/005 separate is a little odd. Of course, there's nothing to stop us capturing the state of an agenda item in bugzilla where it's advantageous to do so. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
