Hi Scott,
It would be very useful for an outsider to see who is "responsible" for
what.
Also, I think we need roles other than "committer" for proper release
management.
Other roles would be useful too, such as "dependency manager" whose goal
is to ensure dependencies are correctly managed.
Thanks,
Chris
Scott Gray wrote:
What would we achieve by cataloging the pieces of the project we feel confident
with? If it's not a serious commitment then how would it differ from what we
do right now, aside from having an extra wiki page?
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 16/02/2010, at 12:04 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Or even informal roles.
For example: My employer doesn't use eCommerce, so I am not qualified to be
responsible for that. But, I will gladly take on responsibility for areas of
the project my employer uses - like Work Effort and Asset Maintenance.
I have been thinking about that lately - each contributor or committer could
list the areas they feel comfortable with overseeing. It would be strictly
voluntary - not a serious commitment or anything.
The reason I suggest it is because I recognize my own limitations - I can't
review and comment on EVERYTHING. I have a feeling other committers are in the
same situation. So, why not catalog our strengths, and assume responsibility
for pieces of the project we feel confident with - instead of (right or wrong)
feeling responsible for the whole project.
W could use the service provider Wiki page as a model - create a Wiki page
where everyone advertises what areas of the project they feel knowledgeable in.
-Adrian
