-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Carlos, I'm on the KDE Documentation Team, and I thought you'd like some feedback about the "Janitors" proposal from the point of view of documentation writers.
Firstly, the good points, from a documentation point of view: 1. More coordination between different people working on the same application. Knowing what is happening with an application, when user-visible changes are being made, etc, without having to monitor kde-cvs, or thoroughly check applications regularly, would be helpful to documenters. 2. The app-based, rather than task-based, approach would (IMHO) be a more interesting way for new people to get involved. On the other hand, there are a few issues with the proposal that need clarification, or discussion: 1. Are there enough people who have the necessary skills to perform tasks like this? You suggest programming, bug management, documentation, UI, artwork and communication as tasks which would be overseen by the Janitors. This is a very wide range of skills :-) 2. Would the aims of coordination between different teams be more easily achieved by formalising (slightly) the role of application maintainer? Or, to put the point in a slightly different way, would the Janitors just end up being the current application maintainers, since they already know the application? If this happens, (as seems likely?), then it will go against the idea of involving new people. On a more positive note, I'd like to offer a suggestion. Since, as you point out, "the doer has most of the power," I suggest a pilot scheme to find out what will actually happen, rather than just speculating, as we have been doing so far. The pilot could take a handful of applications, of different sizes, in different modules, and find janitors for them. If the pilot ran from after the release of 3.2 until, say, the next minor release (3.2.1, I guess), then we would be able to see it in action over a reasonable "release cycle" in a short period of time. Regards, Phil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE/5DQwG5ddmRpv1VERAjmZAJ45A6UfZKc9zQbPgCO/ePk/iFu97gCeP/0r qcaQoFHrNccgUNDKL+f5Ko4= =jgWf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
