[SM-Discuss] Separate "developer" list for admins?
eric at sandall.us
Tue Apr 6 18:40:55 EDT 2010
Quoting flux <flux at sourcemage.org>:
> Eric Sandall (eric at sandall.us) wrote [10.04.07 07:26]:
>> 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.
> I'm OK with this, as long as everyone else is. It does restrict the
> admins in terms of who they can have as assistant/backup admins though.
> As long as there's no shortage of admins with interest in the project
> that won't be a problem, of course.
I would prefer to have anyone with control of our resources as part of
our project, whether they be a Lead Developer, a Systems
Administrator, or our Public Relations officer.
We'll need an Issue Vote to change
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