forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Project Management Roles
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:36:41 GMT
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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

> ---
> 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.


View raw message