On 16/02/2010, at 12:31 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: > Hi Scott, > > It would be very useful for an outsider to see who is "responsible" for what.
How would it be useful? > Scott Gray wrote: >> What would we achieve by cataloging the pieces of the project we feel >> confident with? If it's not a serious commitment then how would it differ >> from what we do right now, aside from having an extra wiki page? >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> >> On 16/02/2010, at 12:04 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >> >>> Or even informal roles. >>> >>> For example: My employer doesn't use eCommerce, so I am not qualified to be >>> responsible for that. But, I will gladly take on responsibility for areas >>> of the project my employer uses - like Work Effort and Asset Maintenance. >>> >>> I have been thinking about that lately - each contributor or committer >>> could list the areas they feel comfortable with overseeing. It would be >>> strictly voluntary - not a serious commitment or anything. >>> >>> The reason I suggest it is because I recognize my own limitations - I can't >>> review and comment on EVERYTHING. I have a feeling other committers are in >>> the same situation. So, why not catalog our strengths, and assume >>> responsibility for pieces of the project we feel confident with - instead >>> of (right or wrong) feeling responsible for the whole project. >>> >>> W could use the service provider Wiki page as a model - create a Wiki page >>> where everyone advertises what areas of the project they feel knowledgeable >>> in. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
