David Crossley wrote:
An idea has occurred to me recently. Each of you will see
parts of your recent statements and ideas incorporated.
Let us discuss this and see if it would work for us.
I have no problem with this formalisation of *volunteer* roles. In fact,
it isn't really any different from what we are already doing, other than
someone takes a "title". I could easily put a name against each of the
roles you identify and there would only be a small number of committers
in there (and Davids name appears far too frequently for the projects
health or for his own health).
It would be great if this resulted in the jobs being shared around more
effectively, and being clearly documented.
David states that he thinks having a title may make people more
confident in their participation - I say it can't hurt to try.
Nevertheless, we need to be aware of the flip side of this coin: having
a title implies that one is not responsible for other activities. David
does make it clear that this is not the intention, and that everyone
should contribute where they can, regardless of their title.
So I am cautiously in favour, but...
Will I be willing to take an official role in this way?
No.
Why not?
I feel I already do far too much around here, as do a small handful of
others. I would prefer to keep my existing role of "doing what *I* need
to be done", I assure you I will do far more that way.
Does this mean I won't do work on any of these roles? Of course not, I
think I have participated in every one of those roles in some way. I
will continue to do so, but not at the expense of my own free time.
-----
So, in summary -
I am perfectly comfortable with others taking these roles if the
community wishes to introduce them. I will remain as a "jack of all
trades" member of the community and help out in whatever role needs me
at any particular time (assuming that I have the spare cycles to do so).
I guess this is a clear case of +0 if it comes to a vote.
---
A final observation -
All of the roles (except perhaps the Forrest Friday coordinator) are
project focused, not community focused. I thought a healthy community
just looks after the code as a side effect of its existence - perhaps
there should be more roles focused on community development, for
example, committer proposer, user education, new committer mentor.
Ross
