sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "Mathieu L." <lejatorn AT smgl.homelinux.net>
- To: SM Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:53:06 +0100
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 01:55:24PM -0800, Eric Sandall wrote:
<snip>
> That's a good point. So we'd have more this structure?
> Project Lead
> |-> Cauldron Lead (Porting would probably move here)
> |-> Grimoire Lead
> |-> QA Lead (with Security being moved under here)
> |-> Sorcery Lead
> |-> Tome Lead (with PR being moved under here)
> |-> Developers
>
> That makes 5 "Teams" under the Project Lead and a group of Developers
> open for assignment, with each Lead being responsible for their components
> (e.g. Cauldron in charge of producing installers (e.g. ISOs)) and organizing
> (through mailing lists, forums, and/or IRC) the "Developers" group, where
> any
> Developer can work on any component (given they have permission from
> the Lead of that component) and not being tied to any specific team.
>
> I would still like the Grimoire Team to have section maintainers, but
> perhaps that could be, again, people from the Developers group asking
> the Grimoire Lead if they can maintain a section, and if Arwed says
> okay, then that Developer can add themselves to the MAINTAINER file of
> that section.
>
> Anyone see problems with this? Shall we go ahead and do this?
That seems a way better scheme to me than the previous example (imho).
Maybe it could even be more simplified if Cauldron and QA were merged
(as QA goal is to provide a good enough stable-rc to be used in the iso)
but that's already good enough if you ask me.
So, even though I have no
real voice in this discussion I'm all in favor for this scheme. :)
In the grimoire team will we have to "re-apply" after the new
organization is set up to get our sections back or will things stay the
way they are now?
Cheers,
Mathieu.
--
"Monde de merde."
Georges Abitbol.
--
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 02/13/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Andrew, 02/13/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization, Eric Sandall, 02/13/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Andrew, 02/13/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Mathieu L., 02/13/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization, Eric Sandall, 02/13/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 02/14/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 02/14/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Pieter Lenaerts, 02/14/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization, Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 02/14/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Pieter Lenaerts, 02/14/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Eric Sandall, 02/15/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Mathieu L., 02/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization, David Kowis, 02/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization -> grimoire team organization, Pieter Lenaerts, 02/16/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Mathieu L., 02/15/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 02/14/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Jason Flatt, 02/14/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Flavien Bridault (Disk Guru), 02/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization, Eric Sandall, 02/15/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Flavien Bridault (Disk Guru), 02/15/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization,
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 02/13/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.