On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 17:50:54 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Suggestions for doing things better are gladly considered.
As I have mentioned on some occasions, I was very impressed by
both simplicity and efficiency of Arch Linux "Trusted User"
organization after studying it "from inside". It is group of
people that are not directly affiliated with Arch developers
but have volunteered to take care/responsibility about parts of
ecosystem. They also have power to make decisions regarding
that ecosystem by formal voting procedure (with strict quorum
and success % defined). Addition of new trusted users requires
sponsorship from one of existing TU's and is approved by the
very same voting procedure. Usually new TU's state clearly what
parts of the ecosystem they want to be responsible for during
initial application and this is often taken into consideration
by voters.
I think D community can take some inspiration from such
approach. It will allow to make decisions on more controversial
topics and speed up process in general by removing bottleneck
of your + Walter decision (assuming you still have veto votes
in case stuff goes really bad). Also it gives clear overview of
who is supposed to be responsible for what and feeling of
making the difference for those who take part in it.
To give some specifics, one D example where we do have something
resembling an organized process is Phobos review queue. Once I
have noticed that there are lot of proposal rotting there (and
that I don't like it) it was trivial to read the reiew process
description, step up and proceed with all that stuff.
Expectations were clear, process was (mostly) clear, same for
responsibilities.
And main reward for that is that I can choose what gets reviewed
next and poke people about their work :)
