[Incubator] Re: [Board] Codesprint guidelines posted

[christopher.schmidt at nokia.com]

First, should probably maintain a list of the reps in OSGeo wikispace somewhere, that way at least the board can get a feel for who is supposed to be representing each project. Second, we should probably explictly reach out to project reps (as you tried to do); on important matters, I expect that reps would usually stand up and be counted without much further prodding. In cases where we are concerned we aren't hearing from projects, an explicit email directly to project reps -- especially in the case of existing disagreements being expressed by some reps -- seems a solid fallback.

Does anyone have a good feel for who the reps are supposed to be now? If not, then I think sending an email to each dev list equivilant asking projects to ensure they have a single rep to the board registered on a wiki page seems an appropriate first step.

I can set up a wiki page and reach out to projects, if there isn't already an active resource like this (or it is sufficiently out of date to be useless...)

-- Chris

"ext Seven (aka Arnulf)" <seven at arnulf.us> wrote:

Chris,
how do you propose we make sure that we have an (attentive) project
representative on the board list? Ideas?

Best regards,
Arnulf

On 09/20/2011 04:38 PM, christopher.schmidt at nokia.com wrote:
> The incubation list is almost certainly not the best way :-) Each
> project is supposed to have a representative to the board as part of
> coming out of incubation, right? Have we kept that up? If not, we
> probably should...
>
> "ext Seven (aka Arnulf)" <seven at arnulf.us> wrote:
>
> Tim,
> I suggest you go to the Wiki directly [1] and change what you think
> needs to be changed. It is a Wiki do-ocracy and I actually sort of
> expect you to propose changes directly.
>
> Maybe we should also include the incubation list - or what is the best
> way of getting a hold of all projects? Ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Arnulf.
>
> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Sprint_Guidelines
>
> On 09/20/2011 01:02 PM, Tim Schaub wrote:
>> Thanks for putting these up Michael.
>>
>> I think a number of us have issues with the "bigger is better" notion
>> with regard to code sprints.  I have certainly seen cases where size
>> contributes diminishing returns.
>>
>> My preference would be to leave the last sentence off entirely (the
>> num days x num projects x num participants metric), as I don't think
>> it is an accurate way to measure "sprint value."
>>
>> Would other object if we took out this sentence?
>>
>> "OSGeo will provide financial support proportional to the "size" of
>> the event, as measured by(the number of projects) times (the number
>> attendees) times (the number of days)."
>>
>> If we need some sort of heuristic for determining how much OSGeo
>> should contribute toward a particular sprint, I think it would come
>> from answering questions like these:
>>
>> 1) Are there clear objectives for the projects/people involved?
>> 2) Is there a demonstrated need for what participants plan to accomplish?
>> 3) Are the people involved the right ones to accomplish the objectives?
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Michael P. Gerlek <mpg at flaxen.com> wrote:
>>> At the board meeting yesterday, I presented a set of guidelines that the
>>> board should consider when being requested to provide support for a
>>> codesprint.  I've captured the content here:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Sprint_Guidelines
>>>
>>> Comments welcome.  (Jeroen, your thoughts would be particularly
> appreciated,
>>> as you're the representative of the Bolsena sprint.)
>>>
>>> -mpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Exploring Space, Time and Mind
> http://arnulf.us
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator


--
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20110920/c43beb66/attachment.htm>