+1, this is a good idea.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> wrote: > +1, like the idea of putting your name into a hat. > > How about "coaching" the first time someone does a release? Do we prefer > to let the docs stand for themselves? > Coaching is definitely a good idea as well; or something like it. However, making sure that the docs are up to date and usable should be an important part of being RM. It should't be an onerous thing -- just "if there's a step missing, or something that wouldn't have worked, then fix the docs for the next guy". Ian > > -Michal > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > I'd previously brought up the idea of "Release Masters", and now after > the > > recent highlight of our release process by other Apache project members, > > I've learned that they are common, and are actually called "Release > > Managers". > > > > Their role, in a nutshell, is to take ownership of a release (either > > through delegation, or by doing it themselves). > > > > It's generally not a glorious job, so it would be great if we could do a > > bit of a rotation on it: > > - a rotation for tools, > > - a rotation for plugins, > > - a rotation for platforms release. > > > > For tools & plugins, the responsibility is a bit better defined I think - > > they are responsible for going through the steps in the release process. > > > > For platform releases, the release manager wouldn't necessarily be > > responsible for individual platforms, but rather for things like docs, > > website, dist/, and for poking people. > > > > > > As for a rotation, one thought is to write down the names of those > willing > > in the actual release steps .md files, and then they can plan out how to > > schedule themselves from there. > > > > How does this sound? > > >
