I mostly agree with Michael. It seems to me the greatest value comes from the continued documentation of the process. I've only been with the project a short time, but it seems quite functional and open. These are two important items to me.
I've seen too many projects, both open source/volunteer and closed source/commercial killed by implementing formal processes. I suppose the issue was that the formal process implementation had been done inappropriately rather than such implementation being inherently bad... but then again we have a saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Being new, I see value in the current process in being documented, and perhaps we'll find things that need to be fixed now to scale up the project in future (assuming that happens). -geoff --------------------------------- Geoff Galitz Blankenheim NRW, Germany http://www.galitz.org/ http://german-way.com/blog/ > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:openvas-discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Wiegand > Sent: Mittwoch, 27. Mai 2009 08:34 > To: Thomas R. Jones > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Openvas-discuss] Formal body of knowledge? > > * Thomas R. Jones [26. May 2009]: > > I have been following the openvas community for some time as a silent > > observer. I'd like to know if there is a formal constraint for CR > > processing. Seemingly a developer feels as though a particular CR > > needs implementation than a he/she initiates a "vote". A project of > > such importance and structure should be formally represented and > > maintained. This renders this project in a less than professional and > > exemplary light----which it deserves. > > I agree with Thomas. Although the process works as it is, a little more > formalization and guidelines surely would not hurt and might lead to a > quicker implementation of CRs. > > There are a few things that are know in the community, but have not been > written down yet. Topics I would like to see documented are: > - Where should the call for votes be announced? > - Who should be able to announce it? > - How long should the voting period last? > - Should we document who is working on which CR? > > Thomas, I'm looking forward to suggestions; it might be useful for you > (and us) if you could update the section in the compendium (see > http://www.openvas.org/compendium/management-of-openvas-change- > requests.html) > to reflect the status quo. If you have any questions, feel free to ask > on the lists or on IRC. > > As Jan said, keep in mind that the process has to be manageable with the > resources at hand. I guess a good strategy would be to take the current > process as a starting point. > > Regards, > > Michael > > -- > Michael Wiegand | OpenPGP: D7D049EC | Intevation GmbH - www.intevation.de > Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany | AG Osnabrück, HR B 18998 > Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner _______________________________________________ Openvas-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss
