Friday March 28, 2008
The results of the OpenSolaris Elections are in. Congratulations to the new board members!
So why did I entitle this post Elections Disappointment? My complaint is with the "community priorities" question which was asked; this was a chance for core contributors to indicate what they felt were pressing priorities. I was not happy with the OGB's choice (which I didn't know about until I voted) to reuse the same set of priorities questions from last year. One of which was:
- Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
Which was subsequently identified by voters in this election as the #3 priority. Did the OGB believe that we did not accomplish this goal in the past year? I know that I took the results of the last poll (it was voted #3 in that poll, too) to heart, and worked hard to make that goal a reality, publicized it using the official channels, and have been enhancing it and taking care of it since that time, mostly on my own time. I felt that my contribution was really undermined by the question.
Second: Who voted for this item as a priority? If you voted for this as a priority, I would like to hear why you did (anonymously is fine). Are you unaware that cr.opensolaris.org exists? Are you unsatisfied with the service it provides?
I hope the new OGB will find a way to reformulate a more cogent poll question about priorities.
(2008-03-28 16:26:55.0) Permalink Comments [6]
Tags: code codereview cr.opensolaris.org opensolaris review
Trackback: http://blogs.sun.com/dp/entry/opensolaris_elections_disappointment
Well said. I was also hoping that public build farms would come up as a priority. Wish we had more questions on the ballot to properly diagnose these results.
Posted by Rafael Vanoni on March 28, 2008 at 05:24 PM PDT #
I agree. The priorities were a missed opportunity this time around.
Posted by Jim Grisanzio on March 28, 2008 at 06:32 PM PDT #
The priority poll was a last minute addition, and with little time to draft a new list, the request was made to use the same questions as last year to measure how well people thought we'd done at addressing them. I can't explain why so many people listed the code review system that high though.
Posted by Alan Coopersmith on March 29, 2008 at 12:02 AM PDT #
I agree with all comments so far (build farms were top of my list too). That said, there's nothing stopping the OGB periodically running polls during the year to ask further opinions of the community - we have the technology, right?
Posted by Tim Foster on March 29, 2008 at 01:18 AM PDT #
The point of leaving the poll questions the same was to judge how we did. Based on the results of the poll its clear that the vast majority of voters were unaware of cr.os.o, defect.os.o, etc.
Thus, we're aware that the problem we face now is not just creating things for the community, but making community members aware that they exist.
(Please note that the vast bulk of contributors are Sun employees... draw your own conclusions.)
The poll results were extremely telling and served their purpose perfectly.
Posted by benr on March 29, 2008 at 09:56 AM PDT #
defect.o.o is not complete, so I can imagine that scoring highly.
I can't think of a good reason for cr.o.o to score that highly beyond lack of knowledge. The atom feed (thanks Dan!) clearly demonstrates it's in rather active use.
Perhaps all that's needed is pointing people in that direction as appropriate (when asked to review a webrev that isn't there, perhaps?)
Posted by richlowe on March 29, 2008 at 02:12 PM PDT #