[DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

Jim Gomes
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

dkulp

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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

Jim Gomes
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? 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.

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

dkulp

> On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>>

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

jgomes
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> >> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

tabish121@gmail.com
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - 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.
[hidden email] | www.redhat.com
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

jgomes
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> >>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Kulp
> >> [hidden email] - 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.
> [hidden email] | www.redhat.com
> twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

chirino
Your proposal sounds good to me.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>> >>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >> --
>> >> Daniel Kulp
>> >> [hidden email] - 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.
>> [hidden email] | www.redhat.com
>> twitter: @tabish121
>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>
>>



--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

gtully
In reply to this post by jgomes
renaming makes sense to me.
On 9 Apr 2015 19:44, "Jim Gomes" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > >>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel Kulp
> > >> [hidden email] - 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.
> > [hidden email] | www.redhat.com
> > twitter: @tabish121
> > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Fix Sorting of Board Reports

jgomes
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. It looks like there's no technical
reason for the current naming scheme. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't
breaking some kind of formatting requirement from the Board.

I'll get them fixed up shortly.

Best,
Jim


On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> renaming makes sense to me.
> On 9 Apr 2015 19:44, "Jim Gomes" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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
> > > >>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > > >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Daniel Kulp
> > > >> [hidden email] - 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.
> > > [hidden email] | www.redhat.com
> > > twitter: @tabish121
> > > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
>