From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GFJbN-0000CD-Ul for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:54:42 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k7LNrrUp002931; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:53:53 GMT Received: from mail-relay-1.tiscali.it (mail-relay-1.tiscali.it [213.205.33.41]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7LNq2Kh020291 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:52:02 GMT Received: from c1358217.kevquinn.com (84.222.86.2) by mail-relay-1.tiscali.it (7.3.110.2) id 44E5D85800027C49 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 01:52:02 +0200 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 01:51:59 +0200 From: "Kevin F. Quinn" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-Status Message-ID: <20060822015159.2deb84f7@c1358217.kevquinn.com> In-Reply-To: <44EA3A0B.7000401@gentoo.org> References: <44EA3A0B.7000401@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.4.0 (GTK+ 2.8.19; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_=wA.hBJ6cE+OMwj_1XRV=yb"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 5d059f54-01ab-4872-a5fb-15603c59df33 X-Archives-Hash: ae78b57bab1c9df3af2972fe0e085b93 --Sig_=wA.hBJ6cE+OMwj_1XRV=yb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:56:11 -0400 Alec Warner wrote: > [...] So below we have 3 large far-reaching projects. > > Gentoo Quality Assurance Team > Gentoo Infrastructure Team > Gentoo Portage Team > Gentoo Foundation > Gentoo Council >=20 > All 5 of these projects are active it's growing ;) > [...] > I request that these teams present status reports bi-weekly (thats one > every two weeks). I'm not aware of the issue that sparked this, but if regular reports are a solution, I suggest that rather than mandating a bi-weekly report, each of the relevant projects should propose a reporting schedule that is appropriate to them. For example, the Council meets once a month, so a bi-weekly status update seems inappropriate (half the reports are likely to be empty, the other half a copy of the meeting minutes which we already get). Perhaps the Foundation would be happier with a regular three- or six-month update, with the occasional ad-hoc update as need arises. Whatever, the point is that each project knows best how often it ought to communicate stuff. --=20 Kevin F. Quinn --Sig_=wA.hBJ6cE+OMwj_1XRV=yb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE6kck9G2S8dekcG0RAoEPAKCLiicdfQiTWRxX1YI986QQxHqN3wCgj4OZ ixkgDJhHRo7KjlTKOYMrj90= =jAEb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_=wA.hBJ6cE+OMwj_1XRV=yb-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list