Re: Items of business

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Hi Elijah,

Le mardi 20 septembre 2005 �0:29 -0600, Elijah Newren a �it :
> Hi all,
> 
> I wanted to ask for everyone's input on a couple matters:
> - tasks owners
> - spreading out the load
> - community participation
> - correctness of membership page
> 
> In more detail:
> - We have tasks at http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning_2fTasks and
> had a meeting during the last cycle and stuck our names to tasks.  Do
> we want to change it up some?

Right now, it's okay for me. We probably need to ask some people if
they're okay to organize the reviews/bugs naggings (UI, accessibility,
i18n people, at least).

> - So, last cycle we spread out the load more on making the unstable
> releases, which also provides us with some redundancy in case any one
> of us gets too busy.  Should we do the same with stable releases?

We can :-) Kjartan, what do you think?

> Kjartan's done a really good job with those and maybe we just want to
> leave things be, but it'd be nice to at least have any extra necessary
> details up at http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning_2fMakingARelease
> (honestly, I don't know if there are any extra needed details or not).

I think all the details are there. Maybe it just needs some explanations
about what will probably fail (gstreamer configure, totem plugin, etc.)
if you don't change the default output.

> - We've talked before about trying to involve the community more. 
> http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning_2fTasks has a number of
> "delegate to community" tasks.  Should we announce this a little more
> widely and see if we kind find some suckers^W volunteers for those
> tasks?

I was planning to send a mail to each of the list that can do the work.
But we could announce it wider and see if more people are interested in
this, indeed. Sounds like a good plan.

> - Is http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/membership.html correct?  In
> particular it says that "It's probably a good idea for approximately
> half of the membership to change every 6 months to allow many people
> to experience a full release cycle and learn about the release
> process. This would also avoid stagnation."  Personally, I think 1
> year turnover would be a little too quick, though turnover is probably
> good in general.  Should it be changed to a different time?  Removed
> altogether?

It looks like there wasn't so many changes in the past. 1 year turnover
is too quick, I agree. It's difficult to define a good time for this (at
least for the little newbie I am). Another solution would be to write
something like "the members are not expected to stay more than x years
in a row (although it can happen) ?". Or just remove this.

I also don't know if it's hard to find new people for the team.

>   Also, is the membership list correct?  jrb is on the list
> but I don't recall him participating and I don't know if it's a case
> of he was replaced before I joined and the page didn't get updated or
> if he's just been busy with other things.

Don't know :-)

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas press�