iirc, previously it was always the shepherds' role to take feedback back to the PMC. As you said, this was sporadic, at best. Even with the automation we have in place, it is *still* the shepherd, imo, who is responsible for doing so and, even more importantly, taking the responsibility for the follow-up, etc...
So if Thadius is the shepherd for Apache Guppy, and there is feedback/commentary on Guppy's report, yet the feedback/commentary is sent FROM Wolfgang (the current secretary), then the natural response from Guppy will be to reply to Wolfgang, NOT Thadius. Which circumvents the whole deal. > On May 22, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> Seems to me that it would be much, much better if >> the Sender of these Emails were the shepherd of the >> report rather than Sam and/or the secretary... > > I'm not following. > > For years, shepherds were responsible for communicating back to PMCs, > but this was sporadic. From what I can see, centralizing this to > something the Secretary does consistently has proven more effective. > > Perhaps you are suggesting that the emails sent by the secretary > "spoof" the shepherd? If so, I think that would be confusing. > > Finally, I don't see how this addresses the original question, which > asked about where responses should be sent. > > Perhaps the content of the emails should contain a standard footer > that says that questions can be addressed either by responding to the > email (for urgent matters) or by addressing the feedback in the next > scheduled report (for all other matters)? > > For those inclined to suggest patches, the relevant code can be found here: > > https://github.com/apache/whimsy/blob/master/www/board/agenda/views/actions/feedback.json.rb > > - Sam Ruby
