I like this *less* than I like the sheriff idea. It sets a "be good
or else" kind of tone, which might be okay in a purely corporate
environment, but is not the kind of tone that I would like to see in
an open source project.
Ted
On Dec 7, 2005, at 8:03 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
On Dec 7, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
The rotation seems like a nice theory to solve the same issue, but
in practice it seems unlikely that any given sheriff-of-the-day is
going to be particularly enthusiastic about confronting such
issues. After all, why argue today when you can let it slide till
tomorrow? This will just further exacerbate the problem of a lack
of social pressure and continue to enable the idea that this is
just bureaucracy or whatever excuses are being used.
I've seen teams where the "build monkey" was the guy who last broke
the build. That guy would have to keep the job until somebody else
broke the build. This provided real incentive to check things
out. Team members groused about having the job but not too much at
all, and often the build monkey *would* implement some system fixes
while he was in the job. Overall I got the impression that team
was very happy with the system as it raised quality overall.
Lisa
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
