| 1 |
Splitting this since Piotr brought up something I wanted to. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Piotr Jaroszyński <p.jaroszynski@×××××.com> said: |
| 4 |
> On 21 August 2010 19:46, Diego Elio “Flameeyes” <flameeyes@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > The role of the lead in this project cannot be simply a "supervising" |
| 6 |
> > one, given that it's the only member of the team that devrel is |
| 7 |
> > interested in hearing from (situation that, by itself, should probably |
| 8 |
> > be changed); it requires actual leading and decision-taking, especially |
| 9 |
> > given the current situation where many policies have never been written |
| 10 |
> > down, and our documentation resources for developers are scattered and |
| 11 |
> > outdated. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I agree that this should probably be changed. I somehow recall 2 QA |
| 14 |
> members being able to make decisions on behalf of QA if quick action |
| 15 |
> is necessary. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This was brought up in a recent council meeting as well. I just haven't |
| 18 |
had a chance to write up an email to the list since I've been on |
| 19 |
vacation. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
2 ideas were presented: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
1) Have someone else that those powers can be delegated to (a co-lead or |
| 24 |
something) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
2) If 2 QA members rule for suspension of access, then it is done. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
#2 seems to alleviate any bottlenecks that could happen. What does |
| 29 |
everyone else think? This can wait until after whatever is decided with |
| 30 |
the election, but the conversation should take place regardless. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Mark Loeser |
| 34 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 35 |
email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
| 36 |
web - http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives