Since there have been no objections after the updated proposal, I've gone ahead and updated the wiki today to reflect this structure.
Best, Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Connor" <[email protected]> To: "Kevin Grandon" <[email protected]>, "Tim Chien" <[email protected]> Cc: "Gervase Markham" <[email protected]>, "Kyle Huey" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Jonas Sicking" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 3, 2014 7:42:43 AM Subject: RE: Gaia::Build module proposal This sounds a lot better, though again I'd rather see a single owner in general practice. It's like co-presidents... a weird thing that only occasionally works. If the people closer to it think it's the right thing, I'm okay with it. -- Mike -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Grandon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: October 3, 2014 2:52 AM To: Tim Chien Cc: Gervase Markham; Kyle Huey; [email protected]; Jonas Sicking; Mike Connor Subject: Re: Gaia::Build module proposal I support this change. Yuren and Alex are already listed as peers of the build module and have essentially been acting as owners of it since being listed. We're just making that official by splitting it out into its own module which should've been done long ago. Since George has contributed quite a bit, and Ricky is planning on taking over ownership there - they would naturally make good peers for the module. I think this is a conservative, but good change to make now and we can always revisit this in a few months to adjust the list based on reality. Best, Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Chien" <[email protected]> To: "Gervase Markham" <[email protected]> Cc: "Kyle Huey" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Jonas Sicking" <[email protected]>, "Mike Connor" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:42:13 PM Subject: Re: Gaia::Build module proposal Here is another alternative proposal: let's list Yuren and Alexandre as owner, and George and Ricky as peer. Does that make sense? On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Tim Chien <[email protected]> wrote: > That shouldn't be an option since Yuren and Alexandre will be continue > providing support to the module as co-owners, but not day-to-day > engineering. > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Gervase Markham <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 02/10/14 05:29, Tim Chien wrote: >>> This is the reality. I don't really know how our module ownership >>> can reflect the reality while sticking with the rules. Please advice. >>> Thanks. >> >> Hi Tim, >> >> I would say that you don't want to have someone listed as an owner >> who is not currently involved in the code. Sometimes people who have >> knowledge of a code area but very little time to work on it are made >> peers, sort of "emeritus", so you could do that. >> >> The owner should be the person involved with the code who has the >> best knowledge of it and who makes the decisions about what goes in, >> what stays out, how design is done and so on. The person with whom >> the buck stops. If there isn't really such a person yet, it's OK for >> a module to have no owner. That's just reflecting reality. >> >> Gerv >> > > > > -- > Tim Guan-tin Chien, Engineering Manager and Front-end Lead, Firefox > OS, Mozilla Corp. (Taiwan) -- Tim Guan-tin Chien, Engineering Manager and Front-end Lead, Firefox OS, Mozilla Corp. (Taiwan) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
