Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>]

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