Re: GNOME Quarterly Reports

["Karen Sandler" <karen gnome org>]

On Wed, January 2, 2013 7:49 pm, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 23:53 +0000, Juanjo Marín wrote:
>
>> I personally think that the major drawback is that there is a mismatch
>> between the quarterly reports and our release scheme.
>
> Rather than being a PR exercise, the quarterly report could be recast
> as, alternately, a formal progress report ~2 months before release
> (highlighting areas of urgent concern), and then a review ~1 month after
> (observing what worked and what didn't in well enough time to make
> adjustments next cycle).
>
> We have a lot of structure in our release process, but defined occasions
> to discuss progress might be a good addition.

I love the idea of tying the reports to our release cycle. Some areas,
like events, don't fall on this cycle, but so long as there is a concrete
cycle to compile this information I think it doesn't really matter.
Quarterly reports as we've had them have often been confusing timing-wise
anyway since the Foundation's fiscal year is not the same as the calendar
year.

I've found the quarterly reports very useful in my work for pulling
together information quickly to provide to others across the different
parts of GNOME, so I'd really love to see them continue. If bringing them
closer to the release schedule makes more sense and has the potential to
make them more useful, then we should do it!

karen