Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:43:16AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote:
> If, for instance, we need to change people and we
> are creating the rules just to allow us to remove them or
> to interfere and ask for the change, then I think we need
> a better approach.
How exactly can we implement a change in composition, without creating
a set of procedures to do that? What better approach is there?
Telepathy? Divine intervention? :)
Perhaps I misunderstood that sentence. Maybe you meant to say that the
option of appointing people by others is missing?
> I keep asking myself if the rules might have a negative effect on healthy
> teams?
I'd appreciate some more concrete scenarios, so that they can be addressed.
> If frustration for some reason with another team or some part of the
> project is one of the factors, shouldn't we also work on that?
How can we codify that? Oblige people to get along with... everyone from all
other teams? How do we gauge that, and what's the response to transgressions?
I'm not against also trying to fix that, and the social committee could
probably help there, but this proposal primarily intends to tackle the
problem of people who go latent, which is IMHO the more pressing concern.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: