Re: [DebianGIS] Re: team
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 09:51:37AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Paolo Cavallini]
> > I have read yesterday an interesting thread:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg01034.html
> > where team maintenance is suggested as a way to speed up things. This point
> > has also been raised a few times on this list. What do DD think about this?
> > If this is not a good solution, are there better suggestions?
>
> As you probably know, I m very positive to team maintenence, to
> increase the chance of someone having time to take care of problems
> when they arise. But the successful teams I've participated in had
> one person coordinating and pushing the development forward, with
> regular status reports, call for IRC meetings, etc. We should have
> those as well to make sure everyone involved is pulling in the same
> direction.
>
Just my 2 cents...
I could take the leading, but as already noted on IRC, efforts in
debian-gis project are often err... pointwise, which is the main
problem for the project. We need more people with little but continuous
involvement and able to work on any d-gis package (and also the QA team
I defined in a previous message on this list, but curiuosly ignored)
to solve general issues. Maintainers of the interested package should
tollerate this kind of 'hijacking' whenever needed. On the basis of
the 'consensus rule' the QA team is already among us, due to lack
of replies to my previous message. That IMHO.
Also many people on this list are not DDs, and that causes a delay
in uploading and working (due to the steepest learning curve of
debian procedures and policy). So we have a few people interested
in working on the project, but who sometimes miss the basic knowledge
to do a good work.
Wiki and IRC can already be used (but they
are not used at all for that currently, why?) for coordinating tasks.
We have already all tools needed for that in place. Just none
who is able (or wish?) to use them, but for me and someone else.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: