Uri Guttman writes:
> that resonates with MMM totally. look at the surgical team approach as
> well but updated. each group has a lead and a 2nd (and possibly 3rd) in
> charge. others in the group do work on various parts under control of
> the group leaders. support types like QA, version control, docs
> management, can be shared among groups.
I'm not sure I like the idea of a lead. I think all three (QA,
source, user liaison) should be equal partners. I think each group's
list should be open to public contributions. The point is to encourage
public participation in the ongoing maintenance.
Then again, remember the hassles we had with the perl6-* lists?
Nobody knew how to deal with topics that overlapped lists. You had
to know all the groups to decide which it was appropriate for. Are
these big enough hassles to suggest that perhaps the perl5-porters
All In One list wasn't such a bad idea after all?