Talk:Roles and Responsibilities Discussion
From Genunix
This entry was origonally intended to host multiple proposals for various roles and responsabilities... however its really become more so about just hacking on one, my origonal proposals.
There are several ways to view the roles and responsabilities:
Idea 1: Open to all...
- Everyone: Baseline
- Observer: Voting person
- Dev: Persons who's contributed in a "significant way"
- Dev+: Person who is a "major" dev and involved in the direction and future of the project
- Lead: Single person responsable for some level of delegation such as a community or project
- OGB Member: Someone elected to the board by a voting person
Idea 2: Open to contributors...
- Everyone/"Observer": Baseline, no one special
- Contributor: Someone who's contributed something in some way, given voting rights
- Core Contributor: Major stakeholder in the community/project's future and direction
- Lead: Single person responsable for some level of delegation...
- OGB Member: Someone elected
Idea 3: Open to leaders...
- Everyone/"Observer": Baseline, no one special
- Contributor: Someone who's contributed something in some way
- Core Contributor: Major stakeholder in the community/project, given a single "binding vote" in elections/votes
- OGB Member: Someone elected
That is, as I see it, the spectrum, really its about 2 things: 1) terminology and 2) At what level are you considered a voting member. These two discussions/debates are, more or less, mutually exclusive and the latter question is more important.
- >>There's one more aspect here; the scope of voting. I believe that the best way to structure membership is to look at what decision-making is anticipated, work out who ought to get a say in each kind of decision and then build a membership structure round it. webmink 17:21, 10 May 2006 (PDT)
Argument for Idea 1: If you want to catch a lot of fish, cast a wide net, lower the barrier to entry in hopes of encouraging development.
Argument against Idea 1: Voting for non-contribution may not encourage people to do anything, just whine about it and assert that opinion. The persons who aren't intimately involved in the project without a vested personal interest are likely unsuited to express a vote themselves and would be better to publically discuss their descisions and leave it to other more experienced contributors and leaders to put it to a binding vote.
The arguments for 2 and 3 really just shuffle the two points above around.
The additional question from this reguards the "lead" role. Should certain roles within the communtiy be formally mandated in governance or left open for interpretation. The goal of such an assigned role is to establish responsability for a given community/project/etc. The lead can delegate as needbe and really has no additional power over and above any other core contrib, except that its "his/her butt on the line". Other similar type roles could also be defined to allow a level of organization within the framework without actually having to define who that framework should look or be implemented.
benr.
