Gary Winiger wrote: >>My immediate thoughts were on advertising in groups such as >>dtrace-discuss, zfs-discuss, networking-discuss, etc - the relevant >>communities for those doing the engineering work. In cases where >>there are projects that have their own list, such as crossbow and >>others, it may also be worthwhile an additional email there, too. >> >> > > I agree to the point have having greater os.o participation > in open ARC cases whether PSARC/LSARC/WSARC/FWARC or any other > active ARC, review board (RB), working group (WG). I'm not > sure that sending mail to every os.o community member is the > way to do it. Supposedly the os.o arc community is the group > of members interested in general. I agree for cases the come > from a specific community, such as you mentioned, and I'd > add smf-discuss and security-discuss, they should be on the > case interest list and receive schedual announcements for > their interest. I'm not sure how the SAC structure can > automate this. > > One way I can think of is that when sac_nextcase is run, the user is prompted for a os.o community name and that is made part of the case properties (something that other scripts can then pickup later.)
>>My feeling, at the present, is that we're inadvertently leaving the >>greater community out of a significant event in a project's life >>cycle and that we should try to be more inclusive. >> >> > > I might phrase it differently. We're making it opaque > to the greater community to know to engage. Unless the > community is on the interest list (and all case owners > might consider adding the communities) they are unlikely > to see any mail. Perhaps meeting nags, like have your materials > in 7 days before should go to the interest list as well as the > project team and owner. > > Yes, that's another way of looking at the problem and the idea of meeting nag emails going to the interest list is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind here. Darren
