sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my
- 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
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my, Mathieu L., 05/22/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/07/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my,
Jeremy Blosser, 05/07/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my,
Eric Sandall, 05/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my, Jeremy Blosser, 05/07/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my,
Eric Sandall, 05/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my, Matt Donovan (Kitche), 05/07/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my,
Jeremy Blosser, 05/07/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my,
Robin Cook, 05/06/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my,
Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 05/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my, Karsten Behrmann, 05/07/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my,
Juuso Alasuutari, 05/07/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my, Jeremy Blosser, 05/07/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] policy docs, developer lists, jargon, oh my,
Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 05/07/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.