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 15:49:17 -0700

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page