1 |
Markos Chandras schrieb: |
2 |
> On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
3 |
>> Markos Chandras schrieb: |
4 |
>>> Hi all, |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for the |
7 |
>>> next Council agenda (or a later one). |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed |
10 |
>>> leaders for QA and DevRel. |
11 |
> |
12 |
>> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA and DevRel? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity of Gentoo |
15 |
> project. |
16 |
|
17 |
How do you weight one project against another one? I see it the other way round: QA and DevRel are |
18 |
only important, if there is some issue not resolved otherwise. But many other projects are always |
19 |
important, since they have to maintain things continuously. |
20 |
While the council could still decide, if DevRel or QA are gone (they just take some workload away), |
21 |
you wont be able to get the council to e.g. maintain our infrastructure, ebuilds or docs. |
22 |
|
23 |
> |
24 |
> |
25 |
>>> I like the idea because this way the Council can ensure that the |
26 |
>>> team is active or either force some activity in case the current |
27 |
>>> leader slacks big time. |
28 |
> |
29 |
>> If there is noone active in a team, noone prevents other devs to join |
30 |
>> the team and vote themselves for the lead. So even if there is no |
31 |
>> activity, it should be no problem to get activity, if someone is |
32 |
>> interested to do the work. |
33 |
> Right now, you can't join any of these teams unless a lead approves you. |
34 |
> Have a look at gentoo-qa ML. |
35 |
|
36 |
Please re-read my lines. I talked about _noone being active_. The QA team is not empty/inactive, |
37 |
neither is DevRel team empty/inactive, so this does not apply to the current situation. |
38 |
|
39 |
>> If the team is inactive and noone interested, the Council wont be able |
40 |
>> to create any activity either, since they cannot force anyone to do |
41 |
>> something. |
42 |
> You can't just join a dead team and become a lead :). There are some |
43 |
> bureaucracy procedures to follow. |
44 |
|
45 |
You cant? who prevents you from doing so? And if there are just some procedures to follow, this just |
46 |
means some initial activity/workload to do so, but again: If the team is dead, who could prevent you |
47 |
from joining it and then becoming the lead? |
48 |
|
49 |
>>> Furthermore, right now there is the potential problem for the |
50 |
>>> leader to only allow new members that he likes so they can vote for |
51 |
>>> him on next elections. Membership and voting actions should not be |
52 |
>>> related in these teams. |
53 |
> |
54 |
>> How is this specific to those 2 projects? Other projects do work the |
55 |
>> same way, so if you argument this way, you should extend your |
56 |
>> proposal to all projects, not just QA and DevRel. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> Like I said, these are the crucial projects. This is because they manage |
59 |
> procedures affecting inter-project related issues etc. |
60 |
|
61 |
I have to disagree about the importance of those 2 projects. The most important work done by those |
62 |
teams is fixing minor issues, being either technical issues or inter-personal issues. While those |
63 |
teams can make a decision, this is never final, you always have the option to go to the council, |
64 |
which is elected by the dev community and has the final decision. So i would see those projects more |
65 |
like some delegation of work to people interested in doing the work in that area, while the council |
66 |
still has the last word. |
67 |
|
68 |
And, as a side note: Only a very small minority of devs is even willing and able to do the work of |
69 |
those projects, so a regular council voting would effectively change nothing beside adding some more |
70 |
bureaucracy. |