[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: role based SIG teams (Was: closing out old bugs of unmaintained releases)

On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 22:46 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2008 12:53 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org> wrote:
>  > Perhaps one option would be for non-programmer packagers to team up with
>  > a programmer/sponsor to take on the task of package maintenance? Where
>  > currently a package has one 'owner', there would instead be two rĂ´les --
>  > a 'packager' and potentially a separate 'hacker'. Those wanting to
>  > package software which they can't fully maintain for themselves would
>  > have to recruit a programmer-type to sign up for the job with them.
> I wanted to follow-up on this with a little strawman diagram of how I
> would want to incorporate David's idea into a larger role-based team
> concept.. where the SIGs are the main organizational structure.
> Take a look at this diagram of how I would like to see SIGs generally
> structured in terms of team roles:
> http://fedorapeople.org/~jspaleta/role-based-sigs/sig-teams.png
> Generally speaking, I'd like to see Packaging SIG have people in place
> for each of the 5 roles identified.  The connections between those
> roles in the diagram represent generally normal role interactions that
> would be expected between team members in a SIG.
> Outside of that, there are Interaction Specialists who act as a
> resource for all SIGs to deal with common tasks in certain areas.
> I've populated the colored rectangles around the diagram with examples
> of types of specialists for different tasks.  David would fall into
> the arch-guru or programming-language-guru category and would most
> likely be called on to help maintainers and developers who make up a
> SIG to help with specific problems.  But on the other side of things,
> artists and video experts would be resources for documenters and
> user-helpers who wanted to create user facing materials like tours and
> task howtos.
> In this diagram the colored role circles are things we could
> internally develop some sort of baseline training and recruitment
> program for.  The colored specialist rectangles are things that would
> be more difficult to provide training for internally..and we are
> relying on expert skills that people have developed outside the
> project.  Okay well feature wrangler is the exception to the rule
> here...but you get the idea.
> Thoughts?

Initial reaction is +1^2.  Good inspiration there.

There was a post from Greg a while back that describes me:

"Oh, right.  I'm not actually an engineer."[1]

So, any idea that helps us better help each other is a good thing.

Also, I like circles and squares and diagrams.  And rainbows.  I'm
particularly fond of rainbows.

- Karsten

[1] http://gregdek.livejournal.com/19843.html
> -jef
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board redhat com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]