[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Formalizing teams
From: |
Maxim Cournoyer |
Subject: |
Re: Formalizing teams |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Dec 2021 00:17:41 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Ludovic,
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> Hello Guix!
>
> I’ve been looking at our guix-patches backlog, at the great
> contributions we get but that stick there for too long, certainly
> discouraging people, and also at non-code initiatives (meetups, Guix
> Days, Outreachy, documentation, etc.) that we as a project could often
> support and encourage better, wondering how we could improve.
I think we're not doing too badly considering the tooling we have at our
disposal, but yes, there's definitely room for improvement!
[...]
> One idea that I like is to bring structure to the group, or rather to
> make structure visible, so that newcomers know who they can talk to to
> get started on a topic, know who to ping for reviews, and so that each
> one of us can see where they fit. Rust has well-defined teams:
I've grown to like our apparent lack of structure; we interact globally
on any topic of interest and the discussions all happen in a shared
space, which makes it easy to stay informed with everything that's going
on (do we really need more mailing lists to follow? I don't think so --
our current volume doesn't warrant it).
> Guix is nowhere near the size of the Rust community (yet!), but I can
> already picture teams and members:
>
> co-maintainers (“core team”)
> community
> infrastructure
> internationalization
> security response
> release
> Rust packaging
> R packaging
> Java packaging
We'd have to include every language/system of importance to that list
(Python, Ruby, Emacs, LaTeX, Perl, etc.), no?
> In Rust, teams are responsible for overseeing discussions and changes in
> their area, but also ultimately for making decisions. I think that’s
> pretty much the case with the informal teams that exist today in Guix,
> but that responsibility could be made more explicit here. They
> distinguish teams from “working groups”, where working groups work on
> actually implementing what the team decided.
>
> How about starting with a web page listing these teams, their work,
> their members, and ways to contact them? Teams would be the primary
> contact point and for things that fall into their area and would be
> responsible for channeling proposals and advancing issues in their area.
>
> What do people think?
Are our problems really organizational? I think before attempting to
come up with a solution, we must analyze and agree on what it is that
needs improvement to help us move forward more efficiently.
Thanks for initiating the conversation,
Maxim