[SM-Discuss] Separate "developer" list for admins?

Eric Sandall 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

-sandalle

-- 
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 mailing list