On May 30, 2013, at 13:52 , Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been organising my task list, and I've merged PKG and RELEASE into one > team called PM. PM here being short for Product Management.
not to bikeshed this too much, but I understand PM to be working on defining what the project is. What you describe is usually called Release Engineering or RELENG. Jan -- > Think it makes > sense to group these things together. Hoping to get Brian Green involved in > this too. > > > On 22 May 2013 14:51, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> 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 >> -- >> >> > > > -- > NS
