On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 14:37:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 05:19:41 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Since everybody is a volunteer, this is how it will be
organized anyway, just pointing out that almost nobody wants
to be called a lieutenant! :)
The name isn't that bad, but the authority question is...
lieutenants would need enough documentation to make decisions
on their own that they can be confident are correct and
accepted by the leadership. We don't have that, so appointing
someone to the title would be meaningless, regardless of what
it is called.
General is a bit different because there's more autonomy there
and such an individual may be ok making up their own rules.
I think more realistic name distinction would be "core team",
"collaborators" and "contributors".
