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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
