On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> So far. > > There are some things here I like, and some I don't like that much. > > I like the emphasis on do-ocracy, and the encouragement for > non-committers to just do stuff (and get elected as a committer soon > thereafter). Or, rather more general, I like all the stuff where you > describe opportunities and encouragements and welcoming and shit that > can be done. > > <ranting> (with a little hyperbole, maybe) > > Then, the document goes off and just undoes all of that by boxing > everything into tags and teams. Those bits make me just want to revert > to my grumpy rant from March's Goals for 2013 thread. This project has > way too few active people working to require this much process (most > of the tags and the teams); it's just process that maybe makes us feel > good, but doesn't actually seem accomplish anything. > > Yes, having a short list of people who are interested in specific > areas of the project would be good. But is "[PROPOSAL] Pulling > INSTALL.* into the docs" really a better subject than just "Pulling > INSTALL.* into the docs"? Do we need to carefully delineate every > mailing list thread into something that has a specific timeout rules? > > I'll posit that if we were a do-ocracy, if we do apply EAFP (which I'm > all for!), we don't need all of that stuff. We push stuff forward when > we have the chance. When we go a little too far in our enthousiasm, we > generally have ways of reverting without much effort. And it would > still be useful for new contributors to know that, if the docs suck in > some specific area, or if they have an event they want to organize, > there are a few people they should talk to who generally know what's > going on in that area. And we might call those teams. But I don't > think we should get mired too much in delineating Boundaries and > Processes. > > And that concludes yet another Grumpy Rant,s > > Dirkjan
I'm agree with all of that. Anyway ather than team maybe we can just consider tags as a way to notify other what's going on and not as teams. I think teams are prematured right now. We will have a lot of overlaps between people anyway. I'm +1 for having a bunch of supported tags. Will see how it works in real life anyway since it's all to people to use them or not. One practical thing I see to tags is that it can also improve their referencing and help us to build some kind of relaxed knowledge base. - benoit
