Hi again, Sorry to start revive the conversation from the silence but I have the feeling that it would be good to reach some consensus before we should let it rest.
@Vaclav: Do you have some more points against the master-children schema? It seems that the general agreement is *for* the restructuring into parent and children teams. So far the only point against was "I didn't find team nesting particularly useful and we already had a couple of top-level teams." Although I appreciate all the work you dedicate to the GitHub management, I don't think that this is a valid point against when compared to the positive ones (although it's understandable that nobody wants to drop something that they have just created). Cheers from the discussion underworld, Ondrej čt 22. 2. 2024 v 9:35 odesílatel Ondřej Pešek <pesej.ond...@gmail.com> napsal: > > Sweet devs, > > Looking at the GitHub teams within the OSGeo organisation [1], it is > impossible not to notice the fact that the GRASS people are very good > in making themselves visible through visual weed infestation. On one > side, it is nice to see GRASS all over the dance floor; on the other > one, I don't find it particularly polite to storm the org and see that > GRASS owns 11 OSGEO's teams out of 24 in the overview (11 out of 26 in > total). > > Wouldn't it be better to follow the example of GDAL instead? Creating > only one master team (grass) and then 11 child teams (grass-write, > grass-addons-write, ...)? It would make the org team overview much > cleaner. Also, you could see all grass child teams' members in one > place. > > In the name of New GitHub Order, > Ondrej > > PS: I also believe that we should reduce the number of GRASS teams and > consolidate some (grass-addons-subversion-committers -> > grass-addons-write) but I guess this is for another and much more > contentious discussion. _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
