Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Separate "developer" list for admins?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Separate "developer" list for admins?
  • Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:40:55 -0700

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 http://www.sourcemage.org/SourceMage/Developer_Organization.

-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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page