Robert Rohde wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think this is a fantastic idea. I think the biggest problem the tech >> side of the WMF has had over the last year or two has been >> prioritisation and splitting the job like this should help that no >> end. >> >> I'm curious - would the Senior Software Architect report to the CTO? >> If so, that means Brion has, technically speaking, proposed his own >> demotion - there aren't many people big enough to do that! >> > Without changing anything else about this proposal, I'd like to > suggest that Brion's job title come with a more imposing description > than "Senior". For example "Chief", "Lead", or "Head" Software > Architect. There is only one Brion, and I assume he will remain > singularly important in his role overseeing software development (even > if he gets a new boss). By contrast large corporations often have > many people who are titled "Senior" this-or-that but are still > relatively unimportant. > So you're suggesting we should join in the rampant title inflation of corporate America, where everyone is a Sr. Executive Vice-President of something? Anyway, your assessment of Brion's ongoing significance to our operations is perceptive, and I hope everyone else maintains that understanding. And to address the question of title a little more seriously, I'm not sure the issue is that critical, but we'll certainly take the feedback into consideration as the organizational structure of the technical team gets defined more clearly.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
