[SM-Discuss] Separate "developer" list for admins?
jblosser-smgl at firinn.org
Tue Apr 6 19:12:30 EDT 2010
On Apr 06, Eric Sandall [eric at sandall.us] wrote:
> Quoting Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl at firinn.org>:
> > Geeze you guys did a half dozen emails just while I was trying to reply
> > once.
> > On Apr 06, Eric Sandall [eric at sandall.us] wrote:
> >> Quoting flux <flux at sourcemage.org>:
> >> 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.
> > Depending on your definitions this is not generally possible; while we have
> > on purpose built our primary infrastructure on hardware the project
> > controls, we don't have funds to do most day-to-day hosting there, so it
> > only serves as the mirror master and only becomes primary when other things
> > fail. Those other things are maintained external to the project and have
> > plenty of in control people that may or may not be SMGL people. ibilio for
> > one, DBG for another.
> I don't consider those properly part of our project, more replications
> of our project.
Like I said, definitions. The DNS determines what people get when they go
looking for us, and we have that, but as long as we're using that to point
to other parties they have day-to-day ability to determine what people see
when they fetch stuff from us. Sometimes the lines are cut and dry, often
> >> We'll need an Issue Vote to change
> >> http://www.sourcemage.org/SourceMage/Developer_Organization.
> > Like David I'd really encourage more discussion before trying to vote on
> > something, two people talking is quickly an echo chamber. I oppose further
> > splitting the classes of people up, just make a component inline with what
> > we already have and KISS.
> We could instead remove the commit quota and change it to something
> more appropriate for all members.
There's two issues here--admins right now may be not-quite what some think
of as "devs", so need a classification (I suggest a component, under
"devs", others have suggested something "not-dev"); and measuring
"dev" contributions for work done by that bunch whether "dev" includes
"admin" or we just have "admins" who also want to be "devs".
The commit quota is appropriate for those whose contributions can be
measured by commits. It's harder to measure some other kinds of
contributions, but we don't fix that by removing the ones that are easy to
Measuring admin "help" is pretty difficult because if we're doing it right
some of us never have to do anything at all (or as a co-worker once noted,
"if I'm NOT playing video games, THAT'S when you worry"). But that doesn't
mean they're not ready and willing to spring into action when duty calls.
We could leave it all as-is except give each given component lead the
ability to override the automatic removal for devs on their component; that
leads to vote stacking unless you do something like cap how many they can
do that for, though.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20100406/135f7898/attachment.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss