[SM-Discuss] Separate "developer" list for admins?
eric at sandall.us
Tue Apr 6 18:49:17 EDT 2010
Quoting Ladislav Hagara <ladislav.hagara at unob.cz>:
>> 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.
> We should coddle our admins. Admins are certainly part of our project.
> The questions is if they want to be related with us. :-)
> Members, Admin and Developers are OK, only we could have more sorcerous
> scheme. :-)
Perhaps (partially taken and modified from
http://www.sourcemage.org/SourceMage/Glossary, which we may need to
update if we decide on these (or other alterations)):
Member -> Guru
General Developer -> Mage
Lead Developer -> Elder
Project/Component Lead -> Arch-wizard or Arch-mage
Assistant -> Master
Admin -> Sage
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