On 28.02.2007 17:50, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 07:51 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 27.02.2007 01:40, Warren Togami wrote:
==================================================
= Strawman of Fedora Developer Ranking System v1 =
==================================================
This concept document contains only *IDEAS* of why we would want a
ranking system, and how a ranking system might be useful. Below are
only examples. Please add your ideas to this thread.
[...]
As two other (red hat) people said "overkill" and "Overly complex" I'd
like to say the opposite: I like the direction, but would like to see
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00764.html
integrated. Sure, maybe some other details need to be adjusted, but this
scheme might meld a lot to get new people involved and growing up in the
project. And that's hardly needed and the best for the project.
Even if the system is a bit more complex than what we have now -- it
lowers the bar (that's quite high ATM) to get involved into Fedora, and
that's important to get new people in. It's thus a step into the right
direction.
I think the specific proposal is too complex. (It _is_ a strawman,
after all!) But I like the idea of doing something like this.
Then I think we are mostly on the same side ;-)
The
incentives are nice, but I'm more interested in allowing people to
choose their level of participation in a particular part of the project.
For example, there are a large number of packages that I care about, but
I don't need to own. I just want to be informed when there are changes.
Or if someone is doing translations for a particular package, they
should be able to watch that package for changes and jump in when that
happens. As near as I can tell that's not easy right now. Some
examples of the kinds of things that I'm talking about:
o Watcher - "I care about this package."
A "watcher" will be possible with the accounts system and would requires
no rank afaics.
o Developer - "I should be consulted when there are major changes to
this package."
Not sure where that matches in. Probably a co-maintainer. It seems I
fail to see the difference between Developer and Hacker state a bit.
o Owner - "I am accountable for changes in this package. The buck stops
here."
That the primary owner afaics, defined in the accounts system
o Hacker - "I can make changes to this package."
That the co-maintainer afaics, also defined via the accounts system.
I'm wondering if we are mixing up "Relationship to a package" and
"status ow a contributor in the project" here.
CU
thl
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
