-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/10/11 07:44, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> do we need some kind of policy around membership on "special" >> project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might >> be another. > > in my eyes we do. too much power to be unregulated. > > what does it take to get this rolling?
Part of me thinks this is a good idea for the simple reason that some people seem to have issues with QA/DevRel. Perhaps if the lead were "appointed by council" there would be less raging every time the team tried to do anything. But then again, we can't all play nice over a freaking ChangeLog, even with Council making the call, so I somehow doubt this will fix *anything at all* I do not want to see "elections" for 3 team leads. As far as I'm concerned, it's way too much of a hassle. Having said that, council appointments for the team lead may not be a bad idea. Maybe it will work. I doubt it, but I'm open to try it. My fear there is I don't want to see team leads changing every year just because there is a new council. If the team is working well together, there is no sense in fubaring that merely because we "can". Perhaps do council appointments if the lead steps down / if the team calls for a re-appointment (there would need to be rules for this part. I don't want to see a new "appointee" merely because the lead upset one person. Perhaps if more than 50% of the team or like 10 other developers are asking for a new lead or some such foo.) Also, while I like the idea of "cleaning" out those teams once in a while for inactive members, I'm not a huge fan of a new lead coming in and removing people from the team just because. Lastly, given that it will be the lead for a given team, I think that team should have the ability to pick their "candidates" to go to council, and maybe just give Council the vote on who gets it. Or, have council appoint people they think are fit, and the team can vote from there. Either way I think would work alright. Just my 2 cents. Regards, - -- Dane Smith (c1pher) Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86 RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN8haaAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxBssQAINmFDp4jYccbNlVmb6iu4QI 4n4Dlg5BXFhIGJu0gCc+Vx7YxvyL+5stNJthKqpeE1ics/2yhBHK/Jc+DTDLyM2G CrYDIC2oS+4spa/DgG0/LDW6RlpLObl3cTnYDtyXq6Fu3+uKTXFm2KIghhHA18cX WHUZRyuocIhkMFvQzIwrddzx8UYvtlFJCB0CUu6ke4/5YE/Q7yBEXEt7GlMNHA5o gwxATVoyyN4M+Q2rxQXuv2IeW9X5DCjOP5LyT6sbOanYPSAgr+95MTxoGZ8LtJu9 iODYN85C/4DaNtyhFvzYA2KtlywRKH1fJwChCPVlIq3SuEdJvpQ6zvvS2UdSm6no qc8oyZEEI076dOiSnT69cyLrsXm9gRY3tIyh1pHmfYzKVVi89yrMzCpKOEd8GL2v V9Xss4JJBZbi60HfYp3gJqozhK6btSsbJ7sH3Kl66nTkownwSEZVigzurAOm+ct5 r7/zKQR8s/fUtFP6bVprDgJpQKMi4TMPYgti6IM7g2iAYfK4v2JCFxUdf0QB/+Is F/XriVGcotvt85Mgj96uzn1I/U1OzrkRdUh30SHectJ91fEHOIVEu1QYbCIWZXKD 0UTJ2BUMZqvPW+8BuHb3G/sYu6iRsHbTKPLYa5vgw2V5nfgjU7fFP0XPEIgbCF/M 4+/PcKQUwBOiIpcl+NDc =8ajo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
