Ross Gardler wrote: > 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.
That is my hope. If it doesn't work, then this project has a problem. > 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. I have an improvement. The roles of Chair and Release manager and ForrestFriday Coordinator all definitely need a single person. The other roles are just ways to define what needs to be done. Anyone can then jump in to do the task. A specific person doesn't need to be assigned. Multiple people can do the role. The community will see the role being done, e.g. the svn@ mail list shows the Doc coordinator doing the commits. So everyone should know who is currently doing the roles. > 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). That is the default role of every community member - just doing whatever one can manage. > I guess this is a clear case of +0 if it comes to a vote. I doubt that it needs a vote. It is really just defining the tasks that we already do. > --- > > 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. Good idea. They are things that we all need to be doing. -David
