[SM-Discuss] Separate "developer" list for admins?
eric at sandall.us
Tue Apr 6 18:25:16 EDT 2010
Quoting flux <flux at sourcemage.org>:
> Eric Sandall (eric at sandall.us) wrote [10.04.07 06:49]:
>> I can't quite parse your last sentence, but for the rest all of our
>> admins have been considered developers and have commit access, whether
>> or not they use it. I don't believe this is a requirement of the
>> admins per-se, but as they're listed as Developers and you want to
>> move them out I don't believe they should lose any of the
>> benefits/requirements we had before.
> I'm not suggesting all admins not be developers. I'm suggesting that if
> they are admins and also developers, they be assigned both roles. If
> they are only admins, then they don't need commit access (they can get
> it if they want it though, in which case they would also be developers),
> and we don't need to worry about whether they get removed from the
> developers list and have their accounts killed. If they are only
> developers, then nothing changes for them since we already have all
> As a hypothetical scenario to make this more clear (again, hypothetical
> - this is not real!), imagine that Jeremy (our main admin) had said that
> he's had it and he's not working on SMGL anymore. However, imagine he
> also says he's kind enough to continue running our servers for us. In
> this case, we certainly wouldn't want him to delete his account from his
> own server. Yet, he wouldn't be committing anymore, and wouldn't be
> voting, and per policy his account would get closed (except that we
> would make special considerations).
> I'm trying to remedy the number of special considerations we have to
> make by having a separate list for a separate role. Again, those who
> perform both roles would be on both lists, and would have both levels of
> access. Those performing only one role would only be on one list.
This brings up the questions of do we want the admins to be part of
our project (I'm for yes) and do the admins want to be considered as
part of this project?
Perhaps if we replace "Developer" with "Member" in our current
terminology and add sub-groups of "Admin" and "Developer" (for now,
with possible future roles as needed) where "Developer" has the added
onus of a commit quota.
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric at sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | http://counter.li.org/ #196285
More information about the SM-Discuss