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 outdated.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 |