Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my
  • Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 10:14:48 -0500

On May 07, Juuso Alasuutari [iuso AT sourcemage.org] wrote:
> On Sunday 07 May 2006 11:48, Andra???? "ruskie" Levstik wrote:
> > general dev lead dev
> > ----------- --------
> > generic : mage -> archmage
> >
> > cauldron : wizard -> archwizard
> > grimoire : guru -> warlock
> > sorcery : wizard -> archwizard
> > tome : scribe -> sage
> >
> > and reserve the "elder" for project/component leads
>
> So far I prefer this suggestion most. It's logical and least confusing to
> have
> mage->archmage and wizard->archwizard. Also scribe->sage as sandalle
> suggested is definitely the best option.
>
> I still don't know about guru->warlock, I think that those could also be
> something similar to wizard->archwizard. I can't think of any replacement,
> though. Maybe they're not too bad.

We shouldn't reserve elder for component leads, because they may well want
to use the title for their component. It also fudges the 'council of
elders' name, which is for all leads (no, it isn't just for the component
leads, we don't want to start recreating practices that have the component
leads on a pedestal separate from the other leads, that isn't the point).

warlock goes to the script guys because that was their suggestion and they
wanted it for themselves (they actually started this conversation with
that).

I've updated the glossary with the terms the various devs/leads have oked
for their own areas.

Attachment: pgpByw3X8kqgQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page