Sorry, we went so over in today's meeting that I totally forgot about
this.
I think having a list of roles with names next to them would be a
good step.
I personally don't like the word "officers" because of the
connotations of bureaucracy that it has for me, but the idea itself
is sound, and I liked Jeffrey's comments about keeping it real and
letting people do other things as they felt motivated. It's also more
important to avoid locking people into particular roles because we
are basically a bunch of volunteers, and getting tired of doing the
same thing over and over is a bigger concern with volunteers than
with employees.
Best,
-- Elliot
On Jul 19, 2006, at 14:40, Mike McGrath wrote:
The infrastructure group is getting bigger and I think its time that
we start examining whether we would benefit from officers in the admin
group. I don't want to create a high barrier to getting involved with
the infrastructure project but at the same time right now everyone is
trying to do everything and as a result sometimes stuff isn't getting
done. (ppc1 has over 200 updates that need to be done).
If we got more fine grained with security we could allow people access
to systems without giving them full root on all the systems. For
example it would be very easy to create a nagios group so multiple
people could access and restart nagios without giving them root to the
box and other boxes. Some apps don't even need shell access to admin,
otrs and mailman comes to mind immediately.
I could see a use for the following officers:
ticketmaster
updates
dba
noc (nagios/cacti)
accounting
VCS
external (someone who can coordinate with the other non-infrastructure
teams on things)
I'm thinking that officers should be limited to people that have been
a part of the team for months and have a good record in the true sense
of a meritocracy. I'm also under the opinion that some systems could
have multiple officers. (for example I could very easily see Warren
and myself as contacts for VCS).
