Hello, Gabriel Wicki <[email protected]> skribis:
>> The “maintainers” role was defined back in the day: >> >> https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2019/gnu-guix-maintainer-collective-expands/ >> >> (In practice it’s probably too broad now that the project has grown and >> could be usefully split into several: moderation team, event and >> promotion, facilitation, etc. But that’s probably a topic for another >> time!) > I don't think the definition per se is too broad, especially since 3. > should now be obsolete (with the GCD process in place). Right, 3 is effectively obsolete now IMO #2 (enforcing the code of conduct) could be handled by a “moderation team”, with a fixed-term mandate to avoid burnout, because it’s really a job on its own. >> The primary responsibility of committers is to “enact technical >> decisions”: >> >> https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html > I think much of the wording in that section is somewhat unfortunate and > not especially enabling growth of the project. Especially now where > team-members and other users are encouraged to review, but committers > are still supposed to double check approved changes, plus signing and > pushing them. Maybe we need to somewhat formalize how teams tend > their own branches and only signal to committers when a merge is due? > Shifting the responsibility more into the teams and leaving committers > with the power to merge, push and fix-on-master type changes? Agreed! >> The primary responsibility of teams (and thus team members) is peer >> review: >> >> https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Teams.html > I think this is where we should make the most drastic change in role > definition. From the project's perspective, I'd suggest that we define > TEAMS to be where interested people and experts work specific issues of > our project. Not just hacking, packaging, PRs and committing, but (not > limited to) web/infra admin, security, propaganda (public relations), > fund raising, future outlook, newbie onboarding, organisation of social > events, abuse prevention and other things necessary...? I agree as well. > Maybe we could generalize the phrasing first, to specify it later: I like these suggestions. Thanks! Ludo’.
