On 22.05.2013, at 15:44, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> So far. >> >> There are some things here I like, and some I don't like that much. >> >> I like the emphasis on do-ocracy, and the encouragement for >> non-committers to just do stuff (and get elected as a committer soon >> thereafter). Or, rather more general, I like all the stuff where you >> describe opportunities and encouragements and welcoming and shit that >> can be done. >> >> <ranting> (with a little hyperbole, maybe) >> >> Then, the document goes off and just undoes all of that by boxing >> everything into tags and teams. Those bits make me just want to revert >> to my grumpy rant from March's Goals for 2013 thread. This project has >> way too few active people working to require this much process (most >> of the tags and the teams); it's just process that maybe makes us feel >> good, but doesn't actually seem accomplish anything. >> >> Yes, having a short list of people who are interested in specific >> areas of the project would be good. But is "[PROPOSAL] Pulling >> INSTALL.* into the docs" really a better subject than just "Pulling >> INSTALL.* into the docs"? Do we need to carefully delineate every >> mailing list thread into something that has a specific timeout rules? >> >> I'll posit that if we were a do-ocracy, if we do apply EAFP (which I'm >> all for!), we don't need all of that stuff. We push stuff forward when >> we have the chance. When we go a little too far in our enthousiasm, we >> generally have ways of reverting without much effort. And it would >> still be useful for new contributors to know that, if the docs suck in >> some specific area, or if they have an event they want to organize, >> there are a few people they should talk to who generally know what's >> going on in that area. And we might call those teams. But I don't >> think we should get mired too much in delineating Boundaries and >> Processes. >> >> And that concludes yet another Grumpy Rant,s >> >> Dirkjan > > I'm agree with all of that. > > Anyway ather than team maybe we can just consider tags as a way to > notify other what's going on and not as teams. I think teams are > prematured right now. We will have a lot of overlaps between people > anyway. I'm +1 for having a bunch of supported tags. Will see how it > works in real life anyway since it's all to people to use them or not. > > One practical thing I see to tags is that it can also improve their > referencing and help us to build some kind of relaxed knowledge base. That summarises my intent. I'm glad we are on the same page. :) Jan --
