We've been talking about this off and on for a while now and I'd like to propose the following to the list. I would encourage everyone (even those not in the infrastructure team) to respond.
I'd also like to say I see a need for officers not just so we can focus on specific needs, but also as an easier way to bring new people in and delegate. As always this is a voluntary system but I think some structure is needed from here on out. I'm proposing the following officers taken from the fedora-sysadmin-main group.
Infrastructure Lead: Mike McGrath Build System/Package Manager: Dennis Gilmore OS Manager: Jeffrey Tadlock Security Officer: Luck Macken Red Hat Liaison: Warren Togami Community Liaison: Seth Vidal
The officers, as a group, will try to decide the best future and use for the Fedora Infrastructure. As a rule we always report to the board but must try to be as autonomous as possible. We may report to the board, but we work for the developers. Gotta keep them happy ;-)
None of this is even remotely set in stone. But if there are no objections I'd like to make this official on the next meeting. Any additions/subtractions should be prepared before then so use the list. I've picked these people based off of some of their current workings, if I've picked you and you're not interested... sorry bout that ;-) just let me know. Its my intention to let these people define their own opinions of what being an officer means, but I'd like them to be written out and placed on the wiki.
Consider the floor open.
-Mike
On 10/5/06, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@fedoraproject.org wrote:
We've been talking about this off and on for a while now and I'd like to propose the following to the list. I would encourage everyone (even those not in the infrastructure team) to respond.
I'd also like to say I see a need for officers not just so we can focus on specific needs, but also as an easier way to bring new people in and delegate. As always this is a voluntary system but I think some structure is needed from here on out. I'm proposing the following officers taken from the fedora-sysadmin-main group.
Infrastructure Lead: Mike McGrath Build System/Package Manager: Dennis Gilmore OS Manager: Jeffrey Tadlock Security Officer: Luck Macken Red Hat Liaison: Warren Togami Community Liaison: Seth Vidal
Forgot one, Development Manager: Toshio Kuratomi (for infrastructure related development)
-Mike
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 21:51 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On 10/5/06, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@fedoraproject.org wrote:
We've been talking about this off and on for a while now and I'd like to propose the following to the list. I would encourage everyone (even those not in the infrastructure team) to respond.
I'd also like to say I see a need for officers not just so we can focus on specific needs, but also as an easier way to bring new people in and delegate. As always this is a voluntary system but I think some structure is needed from here on out. I'm proposing the following officers taken from the fedora-sysadmin-main group.
Infrastructure Lead: Mike McGrath Build System/Package Manager: Dennis Gilmore OS Manager: Jeffrey Tadlock Security Officer: Luck Macken Red Hat Liaison: Warren Togami Community Liaison: Seth Vidal
Hi,
To be consistent with other groups (Docs/Ambassadors, etc) you may want to have people vote for these positions rather than appointing them.
Other than that I think it's a great idea. Being new, I assumed there were already officers...
Sam
Forgot one, Development Manager: Toshio Kuratomi (for infrastructure related development)
-Mike
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 06:22 -0400, Sam Folk-Williams wrote:
To be consistent with other groups (Docs/Ambassadors, etc) you may want to have people vote for these positions rather than appointing them.
Not sure about voting. Ambassadors and FESCo have only started to vote on their positions this past year after having a while to create a sense of what roles the elected body is supposed to perform. These positions are also different than FESCo and Ambassadors in that it isn't an election of a body of people -- it's an election to individual positions. This is the difference between elections for the city council and elections for sheriff, treasurer, and mayor. For these specialized positions you want someone who is familiar with the issues that will be facing them in that job as they will be the go-to person when problems crop up in those areas.
Which isn't to say that voters couldn't do a good job of picking people with the right skills and knowledge here either. But I think we lack one other criteria for good elections: voters. Currently we only have 31 people listed in the sysadmin groups so it's somewhat silly to hold elections for seven positions at this point. I think a simple confirmation/discussion will better serve us at this time.
-Toshio
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:04:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 06:22 -0400, Sam Folk-Williams wrote:
To be consistent with other groups (Docs/Ambassadors, etc) you may want to have people vote for these positions rather than appointing them.
Not sure about voting. Ambassadors and FESCo have only started to vote on their positions this past year after having a while to create a sense of what roles the elected body is supposed to perform. These positions are also different than FESCo and Ambassadors in that it isn't an election of a body of people -- it's an election to individual positions. This is the difference between elections for the city council and elections for sheriff, treasurer, and mayor. For these specialized positions you want someone who is familiar with the issues that will be facing them in that job as they will be the go-to person when problems crop up in those areas.
Which isn't to say that voters couldn't do a good job of picking people with the right skills and knowledge here either. But I think we lack one other criteria for good elections: voters. Currently we only have 31 people listed in the sysadmin groups so it's somewhat silly to hold elections for seven positions at this point. I think a simple confirmation/discussion will better serve us at this time.
Prior to filling positions with people and titles, it would be better to define the obligations, responsibilities, and the work-flow for each of these positions.
Like "What exactly does the Build System/Package Manager [X] do? How does he differ from other contributors within the Infrastructure Group? What do you--i.e. a contributor or person within the Infrastructure Group--need him for instead of the list?" [X] insert other position titles here
Especially for people outside the Infrastructure Group or even outside the Fedora Project, such information about the structure of parts of the project is important.
On 10/6/06, Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:04:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 06:22 -0400, Sam Folk-Williams wrote:
To be consistent with other groups (Docs/Ambassadors, etc) you may want to have people vote for these positions rather than appointing them.
Not sure about voting. Ambassadors and FESCo have only started to vote on their positions this past year after having a while to create a sense of what roles the elected body is supposed to perform. These positions are also different than FESCo and Ambassadors in that it isn't an election of a body of people -- it's an election to individual positions. This is the difference between elections for the city council and elections for sheriff, treasurer, and mayor. For these specialized positions you want someone who is familiar with the issues that will be facing them in that job as they will be the go-to person when problems crop up in those areas.
Which isn't to say that voters couldn't do a good job of picking people with the right skills and knowledge here either. But I think we lack one other criteria for good elections: voters. Currently we only have 31 people listed in the sysadmin groups so it's somewhat silly to hold elections for seven positions at this point. I think a simple confirmation/discussion will better serve us at this time.
Prior to filling positions with people and titles, it would be better to define the obligations, responsibilities, and the work-flow for each of these positions.
Like "What exactly does the Build System/Package Manager [X] do? How does he differ from other contributors within the Infrastructure Group? What do you--i.e. a contributor or person within the Infrastructure Group--need him for instead of the list?" [X] insert other position titles here
Especially for people outside the Infrastructure Group or even outside the Fedora Project, such information about the structure of parts of the project is important.
In this instance I was hoping the people involved would help design the guidelines for their own roles, for approval of course.
-Mike
On 10/6/06, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 10/6/06, Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:04:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 06:22 -0400, Sam Folk-Williams wrote:
To be consistent with other groups (Docs/Ambassadors, etc) you may want to have people vote for these positions rather than appointing them.
Not sure about voting. Ambassadors and FESCo have only started to vote on their positions this past year after having a while to create a sense of what roles the elected body is supposed to perform. These positions are also different than FESCo and Ambassadors in that it isn't an election of a body of people -- it's an election to individual positions. This is the difference between elections for the city council and elections for sheriff, treasurer, and mayor. For these specialized positions you want someone who is familiar with the issues that will be facing them in that job as they will be the go-to person when problems crop up in those areas.
Which isn't to say that voters couldn't do a good job of picking people with the right skills and knowledge here either. But I think we lack one other criteria for good elections: voters. Currently we only have 31 people listed in the sysadmin groups so it's somewhat silly to hold elections for seven positions at this point. I think a simple confirmation/discussion will better serve us at this time.
Prior to filling positions with people and titles, it would be better to define the obligations, responsibilities, and the work-flow for each of these positions.
Like "What exactly does the Build System/Package Manager [X] do? How does he differ from other contributors within the Infrastructure Group? What do you--i.e. a contributor or person within the Infrastructure Group--need him for instead of the list?" [X] insert other position titles here
Especially for people outside the Infrastructure Group or even outside the Fedora Project, such information about the structure of parts of the project is important.
In this instance I was hoping the people involved would help design the guidelines for their own roles, for approval of course.
Sorry, I should preface this with:
I know this is a bit unorthodox but given who's involved and that we need to get more people in I felt speed was important. I certainly don't suspect that this will be the permanent way officers come and go. But these are all guys that are regularly at the meetings and know the environment pretty well.
This is not at all in stone and I'd encourage anyone that has a problem or a better idea to bring it up on the list or come to the next meeting. I just want to have the guys in place so we can bring in some new guys en mass (an announcement will go out soon) and have the right people get sponsored by the right sponsors.
-Mike
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:51:48 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Infrastructure Lead: Mike McGrath Build System/Package Manager: Dennis Gilmore OS Manager: Jeffrey Tadlock Security Officer: Luck Macken Red Hat Liaison: Warren Togami Community Liaison: Seth Vidal
Forgot one, Development Manager: Toshio Kuratomi (for infrastructure related development)
Sounds good to me.
C
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Christian Iseli -
Michael Schwendt -
Mike McGrath -
Sam Folk-Williams -
Toshio Kuratomi