Project Direction - Structure
Ron Severdia
and a sizable portion of the people present at that summit are no
longer with the project, can we agree on the details of a structure
here? That may be as simple as each person writing what they think it
is (or should be) and then figuring out the delta.
For reference, the original announcement of the new structure from
June is here:
http://www.joomla.org/announcements/general-news/5240-joomla-project-leadership.html
The image missing from that page is here:
That was reformatted and a team page created here:
http://www.joomla.org/about-joomla/the-project/project-teams.html
And the missing image from that page is here:
Andrew Eddie
My assumption is that you want "just" this page to be up-to-date (if
it's not already):
http://www.joomla.org/about-joomla/the-project/project-teams.html
Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://www.theartofjoomla.com - the art of becoming a Joomla developer
2009/12/22 Ron Severdia <ron.se...@joomla.org>:
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla Leadership" group.
> To post to this group, send email to joomla-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-leaders...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
>
>
>
Andrew Eddie
talking about this page:
http://www.joomla.org/about-joomla/the-project/project-teams.html
I don't think we should be tampering with an already published
announcement for what it's worth.
My Comments:
DIAGRAM
Keep it simple and showing how the information and responsibilities
flow. Include a general description but don't do exhaustive dot
points because they can and do change over time. Let the text cover
the most up-to-date micro-detail and let the diagram be an assistance
to seeing how the various parts fit in the jigsaw puzzle.
So in my opinion both diagrams are overly detailed.
GENERAL
The project teams page should have a link back to the related pages
such as previous announcements.
JOOMLA LEADERSHIP TEAM
Add (read only) to the Public Discussion Group. No other issues at this time.
PRODUCTION WORKING GROUP
Take the names off this page and refer to a separate page like is done
for the LT, if not the same page. Clarify who belongs to what team on
that page.
In Responsibilities, bust 'Core code development' up into three labels
so that the three mailing lists can be linked out.
Need to add a link to developer.joomla.org
Add (read only) to the Public Discussion Group. No other issues at this time.
COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP
Take the names off this page and refer to a separate page like is done
for the LT, if not the same page. Clarify who belongs to what team on
that page.
Add JRD to the responsibilities.
Add (read only) to the Public Discussion Group. No other issues at this time.
OPEN SOURCE MATTERS
Link out the board of directors to the appropriate OSM page.
The note about the Community Oversight Committee seems like a bit of
an after thought. Maybe give it a heading like the rest with members
and responsibilities (linked off the OSM site).
If OSM and the COC have public read only lists they should be listed here.
OSM is responsible for joomla.org itself is it not? So that should be listed.
I think that's all the information that needs to be on that page.
There are sub-committees of OSM etc but that really belongs on OSM's
site.
Otherwise the page, in my opinion, represents what we have - unless
I'm missing something.
Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://www.theartofjoomla.com - the art of becoming a Joomla developer
2009/12/22 Andrew Eddie <mamb...@gmail.com>:
Ron Severdia
I'm disappointed that it's been over two weeks and there haven't been
any other responses besides Andrew's. It appears that my concerns in
this area are being considered unimportant and/or unfounded. It also
appears that I'm in the minority of people that think there's a need
to get certain things back on track.
Therefore, I'll refrain from pursuing the discussion any further. If
the Leadership Team feels things are running well the way they are,
and have implied so by their silence, then who am I to keep rocking
the boat. However, I disagree with that assessment. And I guess we'll
leave it at "agree to disagree..."
Andrew Eddie
> Thanks for your response, Andrew.
>
> I'm disappointed that it's been over two weeks and there haven't been
> any other responses besides Andrew's. It appears that my concerns in
> this area are being considered unimportant and/or unfounded. It also
> appears that I'm in the minority of people that think there's a need
> to get certain things back on track.
Nah, I'd say it was just that the Christmas cake was more important.
> Therefore, I'll refrain from pursuing the discussion any further. If
> the Leadership Team feels things are running well the way they are,
> and have implied so by their silence, then who am I to keep rocking
> the boat.
Ok, *that's* a different question to the one you asked. To that I
would answer I have no issue with the current project
macro-structures. IIRC the working group consolidation happened in
accordance with discussions within the CoC Q1 or so of 2009 (can't
recall the exact date). Having been able to observe both sides of the
fence I think the macro-structure of PLT + CLT = LT has worked really
well and a massive improvement over what it replaced.