activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports
Date Thu, 09 Apr 2015 19:12:34 GMT
renaming makes sense to me.
On 9 Apr 2015 19:44, "Jim Gomes" <e.semog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Tim. That is a clear and compelling reason to keep them there.
>
> With that clarified, does anyone have any comments on the renaming of the
> pages to improve the indexing?
>
> Best,
> Jim
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Timothy Bish <tabish121@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 04/09/2015 02:13 PM, Jim Gomes wrote:
> > > Thanks for the explanation. That helps.
> > >
> > > So, I guess we could discuss the merits of keeping the Board Reports on
> > our
> > > wiki, as it does seem somewhat redundant. As long as they exist on the
> > > wiki, it would be helpful to have a better indexing system.
> > >
> > > Perhaps Hiram can offer background as to the purpose and intent of the
> > > Board Reports being published on the wiki?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jim
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Jim Gomes <jgomes@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for the link, Dan. I didn't know those were there. I think the
> > >> main
> > >>> difference here is that link is to the Board Minutes, whereas the
> > >> ActiveMQ
> > >>> wiki has the Board Report. They seem to be identical, but will they
> > >> always
> > >>> be?
> > >> Possibly not, but it would NORMALLY be because the board has decided
> > >> something should be private (like names of people being voted on or
> > >> something) in which case it should likely not have been in our public
> > >> version as well.   Doesn't happen too often.  Also, they would remove
> > any
> > >> "wiki formatting" type things that wouldn't look right in the text
> form
> > >> they use.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> And even if they are identical, do we still need to have the
> redundancy
> > >>> for trace-ability? For instance, if the Board, for whatever reason,
> > >> claims
> > >>> they didn't receive the report, we have documentation on the wiki
> > showing
> > >>> the Report was produced.
> > >> I don't really think the board would care if one was produced or not.
> > >>  It's the chair's job to make sure the board gets the report.  If they
> > >> don't get it, they ask the chair to report again next month.   If the
> > chair
> > >> consistently has issues, they'd likely replace the chair.    Another
> > thing
> > >> to keep in mind:  it's the Chairs job to create the report that
> reflects
> > >> the state of the community.  The chair MAY include the wider community
> > in
> > >> creating that report, but that's not a requirement.   Thus, saying
> "the
> > >> community produced one, the chair didn't submit it" really wouldn't
> > matter
> > >> at all.
> > >>
> > >> Dan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> That's me just trying to understand the reason for the Board Report
> > >> page's
> > >>> existence.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Jim
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> No "objection", but why don't we just delete the page and point
at
> the
> > >>>> official records:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/ActiveMQ.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dan
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Jim Gomes <jgomes@apache.org>
wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I recently went out to look at previous Board Reports (
> > >>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/apache-activemq-board-reports.html)
and
> > >> found
> > >>>>> the current sorting method difficult to deal with. Unless we
are
> > >> required
> > >>>>> to use the page naming format, I would like to change it to
the
> > >> following
> > >>>>> format:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Apache ActiveMQ Board Report - 2009.01 January
> > >>>>> Apache ActiveMQ Board Report - 2009.04 April
> > >>>>> Apache ActiveMQ Board Report - 2009.07 July
> > >>>>> .
> > >>>>> .
> > >>>>> .
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would then set it to sort in reverse order so the most recent
> > report
> > >> is
> > >>>>> automatically at the top, and they descend in chronological
order.
> > The
> > >>>>> current sorting puts the most recent board report (2015/02)
in the
> > >> middle
> > >>>>> of the pack, making it difficult to find. Good luck trying
to find
> > the
> > >>>>> report directly prior to that.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I will make the changes, unless anyone has other suggestions.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best,
> > >>>>> Jim
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Daniel Kulp
> > >>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel Kulp
> > >> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > I believe that he does this as a place to create and edit them and allow
> > for other members to contribute if they so desire before he submits
> > them.  I've edited a couple in the past prior to submission to add CMS
> > or NMS release notes.
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bish
> > Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> > tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
> > twitter: @tabish121
> > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message