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: Mark Bainter <mbainter-smgl AT trampledstones.com>
  • To: SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Separate "developer" list for admins?
  • Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:15:17 -0500

Ok, so, I kept checking this thread to see where we were, and nobody was
replying. I'm away for a couple days with family and there's an
explosion of activity. ;-) At least I got here before the vote.

Jeremy Blosser [jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org] wrote:
> On Apr 05, flux [flux AT sourcemage.org] wrote:
> > I'm going through our developer list for cleanup. I know some developers
> > are kept in the list because they are admins. This got me thinking
> > though, and I would like to propose a separate list of the Source Mage
> > admins, in addition to the developer list. It has the following
> > advantages:

First, as I told flux, I'm not opposed to splitting the admins in some
way, as long as there's no superficial divide that says you can only be
one. I don't have tons of time, but I do enjoy being able to contribute
when I can.

> So if anything I'd like to see a full component, with a component lead,
> defined duties, and members who are developers and stay developers as long
> as they keep contributing through that component (or any other component
> they help with). Terminology-wise we've treated the servers like
> "familiars" or other pets and I've thought about calling the member
> developers Druids but I'm not sure of the component name. The concept is
> Menagerie but that's not really a used term to me anyway.

I like this idea. I think there are some other workable naming and
heierarchy ideas that have been thrown about, but I like this one best.
IMO, admins always should be developers too [in the general sense]. Not
in the same way those who focus on that are, but in the same way they
dabble in everything else. Given that we eat our own dogfood, there's
always going to be times we need to commit fixes in, and we should be
prepared to do that.

However, I agree we probably *shouldn't* have a commit requirement to be
remain on the admin team, and that should probably be determined by the
lead. Of course - if we started doing infrastructure as code (ala
puppet) we could probably have our own commit requirement...but I think
we'd rather have that be as *few* changes as possible. ;-)



--

Attachment: pgpafaIM2tJqa.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page