forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thorsten Scherler <thors...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Project Management Roles
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:30:23 GMT
El vie, 28-04-2006 a las 18:36 +1000, David Crossley escribió:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > >An idea has occurred to me recently. Each of you will see
> > >parts of your recent statements and ideas incorporated.
> > >Let us discuss this and see if it would work for us.
> > 
> > I have no problem with this formalisation of *volunteer* roles. In fact, 
> > it isn't really any different from what we are already doing, other than 
> > someone takes a "title". I could easily put a name against each of the 
> > roles you identify and there would only be a small number of committers 
> > in there (and Davids name appears far too frequently for the projects 
> > health or for his own health).
> > 
> > It would be great if this resulted in the jobs being shared around more 
> > effectively, and being clearly documented.
> 
> That is my hope. If it doesn't work, then this project
> has a problem.

I see this as well as most crucial part of this proposal. 

The idea would be that everyone can execute the role of xyz. Like Ross
stated, David is most likely the current role xyz executor. If he cannot
participate as much as he is doing now, we all need to be able to
execute the tasks involved. If we do/can not, we indeed have a problem.

Documentation is one important point to get started and I bet each one
of us will encounter different problems while executing. We can add them
to the documentation again. This way after just a couple of shares the
next will be able to do the tasks in no time. Maybe we can even write
some scripts for some tasks involved.

> > David states that he thinks having a title may make people more 
> > confident in their participation - I say it can't hurt to try. 
> > Nevertheless, we need to be aware of the flip side of this coin: having 
> > a title implies that one is not responsible for other activities. David 
> > does make it clear that this is not the intention, and that everyone 
> > should contribute where they can, regardless of their title.
> 
> I have an improvement.
> 
> The roles of Chair and Release manager and ForrestFriday
> Coordinator all definitely need a single person.

agree, since e.g. FF coordinate is responsible that the irc log is added
to the rep.

> The other roles are just ways to define what needs to be
> done. Anyone can then jump in to do the task. A specific
> person doesn't need to be assigned. Multiple people can
> do the role. The community will see the role being done,
> e.g. the svn@ mail list shows the Doc coordinator doing
> the commits. So everyone should know who is currently
> doing the roles.
> 
> > So I am cautiously in favour, but...
> > 
> > Will I be willing to take an official role in this way?
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > Why not?
> > 
> > I feel I already do far too much around here, as do a small handful of 
> > others. I would prefer to keep my existing role of "doing what *I* need 
> > to be done", I assure you I will do far more that way.
> > 
> > Does this mean I won't do work on any of these roles? Of course not, I 
> > think I have participated in every one of those roles in some way. I 
> > will continue to do so, but not at the expense of my own free time.
> > 
> > -----
> > 
> > So, in summary -
> > 
> > I am perfectly comfortable with others taking these roles if the 
> > community wishes to introduce them. I will remain as a "jack of all 
> > trades" member of the community and help out in whatever role needs me 
> > at any particular time (assuming that I have the spare cycles to do so).
> 
> That is the default role of every community member - just doing
> whatever one can manage.
> 

yes, that is per definition.


> > I guess this is a clear case of +0 if it comes to a vote.
> 
> I doubt that it needs a vote. It is really just defining
> the tasks that we already do.

Yes and linking them to the existing documentation regarding the role
(e.g. release-readme).

> > ---
> > 
> > A final observation -
> > 
> > All of the roles (except perhaps the Forrest Friday coordinator) are 
> > project focused, not community focused. I thought a healthy community 
> > just looks after the code as a side effect of its existence - perhaps 
> > there should be more roles focused on community development, for 
> > example, committer proposer, user education, new committer mentor.
> 
> Good idea. They are things that we all need to be doing.

Yes, this are very crucial roles that we need to as well document.

salu2
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)


Mime
View raw message