[SM-Discuss] project organization

Flavien Bridault (Disk Guru) f.bridault at fra.net
Wed Feb 15 17:24:27 EST 2006


Le mardi 14 février 2006 à 08:20 -0800, Jason Flatt a écrit :
<snip>
> 
> The Grimoire Team has not felt like a "real" team for a long time.  I believe 
> it is because more and more people are signing up as General Gurus, rather 
> than Section Gurus.  They take no ownership of the project or sub-project 
> they are a part of, and therefore do nothing, or they do little with no real 
> direction or guidance.  I still feel very much like the Printer Section is 
> "mine" because I took ownership of it while I was a guru.  I have to keep 
> reminding myself that it is no longer my responsibility and I need to focus 
> on other things, especially when someone else makes an update to it.
> 
I still think this is a big problem... Imho this is not very good
because as Jason stated, because this doesn't give a lot of
responsibility to the developer. Even if the GG can help a lot in a
section, bugs still go to the section guru (if there is one ;) ), and
the interest of a GG about a spell can be limited in time.
I think the GG status should be revised. Historically, general gurus, if
I understood well, were at the beginning positions for more experienced
gurus. We have very good GGs, that are very helpful for all the
unmaintained sections, but this is not a good position for beginners
imho. 
This would be better to encourage people to maintain a whole section,
however, I understand this could seem a huge work for beginners. Some
sections are very big, or contains too tricky spells, so that this is
difficult for a beginner to maintain it. But we always lack for gurus,
and so we can't afford to refuse new volunteers, even if they do a
little work.
Since we can't change our grimoire layout before 1.0, I wonder if we
should not consider to allow beginners to take ownership on individual
spells, even in maintained sections if the section guru agrees. They
could be called simply "Spell Gurus". This would lead to more
responsibility for them, and gives them real objectives. We can use the
old MAINTAINER field [0] to store the ownership.

What are your thoughts about that ?

[0] http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9010

<snip>
-- 
Flavien Bridault
Source Mage GNU/Linux - Disk Section Guru

irc: vlaaad
jabber: vlaaad at amessage.be
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20060215/abe21cd0/attachment.bin 


More information about the SM-Discuss mailing list