redefining SIGs (old and new)

[jspaleta at gmail.com]

have you seen my rainbow chart?
http://jspaleta.fedorapeople.org/role-based-sigs/sig-teams.png
there's an svg in there as well if you want to do your own strawman.

Let me boil it down for you...
I want to organize role based teamwork around...packages.  End of the
day, as a project packages are a clear deliverable and focus.  Other
things while very important are support services to make us more
effective at deliverying packages.  So I want to organize work that
makes all the crap that needs to get done in relationship to a chunk
of the package repository. I want a role based team model. All of it
from front line user help, to documenting features, to triage, to
maintaining and developing.

For each role on such a team, there is a support group that handles
the policy around the tasks associated with that area.  So triage
would have a support group, made up of triagers from each package
oriented SIG as well as floating experts.  That support group deals
with triage policy, tools, and recruitment and training for new
triagers to fill roles in SIGs that need help in that area.  And so on
and so on for different roles

There will of course need to be other support groups that don't have a
definable role in a packaging SIG...yet.  Marketting for example, very
not package oriented yet. But as it develops it could very well end up
with some packagespace related tasking, similar to beat writing for
the release notes.  The point is to put a little more structure into
how we organize people.  My proposal would have two basic structures.
Role based packaging SIGs that do all the tasks associated with chunk
of packagespace, and support groups organized around a role area.

In my strawman rainbow chart of love, those support groups are called
interface specialists... because they are the interfaces where
different packaging SIGs meet.
Right now our Marketing and Documentation SIGs are good examples of
what interface groups are.  And I'm not looking to experiment with
role assignments in these support groups.  I am looking to affect
change in how packaging SIGs are put together.

right now the only team structure we have is a SIG, so i've reused the
name.  I frankly don't care what its called.  I'm just trying to
organize things differently so we can have role oriented support
groups, in the hopes of driving recruitment and specialized training
to help packaging SIGs become more effective at what they do.  We need
 documenters and triagers and what not to be working directly with
maintainers. We don't really want maintainers to train up those
people.

<sing along to the Different Strokes TV theme>
it takes... different roles..different roles..different roles to move the bits
</sing along>

-jef"Would it be wrong to delibrately create a hardware failure
situation, such that I could fly back out here to King Salmon.. in the
summer...and actually enjoy the trip?"spaleta

On 1/31/08, Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
>
> > Jef has some hot ideas here so I'm OK with him co-opting the SIG
> > usage/namespace.
> >
> > However, it has had a historical meaning in Fedora and what do we
> > replace that with?
> >
> > SIG has meant, a group starting around something that wasn't ready to go
> > through the formal project process:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects
> >
> > "A SIG earns official project status through successful accomplishment
> > of objectives that warrant more prominence in the Fedora Project. If
> > contributors request it, the parent project or the Fedora Project Board
> > will evaluate the SIG's progress reports and make a determination of
> > readiness for this stage. At this point, it may be branded with the
> > Fedora name and promoted to the full status of a Fedora project. It can
> > join the ranks of the most valuable initiatives currently leading the
> > Fedora Project."
> >
> > What do we call that incubation stage?
> >
> > I ask because we just voted yesterday to form the Marketing SIG, but Jef
> > is reasonably arguing that Docs, Marketing, etc. are support services in
> > his new SIG model.  OTOH, I'm sure that if, at this stage, we had to
> > follow all the project definition rules to get an official "Marketing
> > Project", we'd bury half the interested people and lose a lot of
> > momentum.
>
> Why?
>
> Marketing has a ton of tasks and some leadership.  Why can't we set up
> governance for the Marketing group?  What hurdles are there to clear?
>
> --g
>
> --
> Greg DeKoenigsberg
> Community Development Manager
> Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
> "To whomsoever much hath been given...
> ...from him much shall be asked"
>
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
>