On Wednesday, October 11, 2000 3:45 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
[snip[
> documentation, etc. The teams will obviously work together at time.
> Each team has three roles identified: the person who checks in
> patches, the person who represents user interest in that area, and the
> person who QAs that area. There may be others, members of the public,
> but these three are the ones who must be satisfied with a release
> before it can go out. There is no team leader, merely the union of
> those three people. The release manager is there to help each team
> work with its team members, and to help teams work together.
> The system is self-balancing. The release manager cannot override a
> team that will not approve a release. If teams want to kick out the
> release manager, they can get together and do so. The release manager
> should be involved in intra-team disputes to ensure that booting a
> team member out is an action of last resort and not merely a way to
> force a release through over valid objections.
[snip]
Everything 100% A-OK, clear, agreed, and sounds wunnerful.
> > Anyway, it's definitely moving in a good direction, and shows
> > potential to solve a majority of problems. Yes, this is a good
> > direction.
>
> What else is there to say? I want to get this topic dealt with so
Naw, I just meant that it sounds good in theory. As you've pointed out, it just
needs to be seen in actual practice. Also, IIRC, it has to be "approved".
> I tend to lose patience with any thread that goes on for longer than
> three days, so we're reaching the end of my ability to focus here :-)
That's fine, you've been patient, considerate, understanding, and extremely
helpful. You deserve a nap... or a beer, your choice.
