role based SIG teams (Was: closing out old bugs of unmaintained releases)
Karsten 'quaid' Wade
kwade at redhat.com
Fri Jan 25 08:14:34 UTC 2008
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 22:46 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2008 12:53 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at 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 rôles --
> > 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20080125/7ba27861/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list