Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > One idea that I like is to bring structure to the group, or rather to > make structure visible, so that newcomers know who they can talk to to > get started on a topic, know who to ping for reviews, and so that each > one of us can see where they fit. Rust has well-defined teams: > > https://www.rust-lang.org/governance > Definitely! Perhaps this an aesthetic matter, but keeping-with the community spirit of Guix, and the existing nomenclature where the 'core' maintainers are called a "collective", perhaps we should avoid some of the more corporate "team" language of Rust/Mozilla and stick to "collectives"? > In Rust, teams are responsible for overseeing discussions and changes in > their area, but also ultimately for making decisions. I think that’s > pretty much the case with the informal teams that exist today in Guix, > but that responsibility could be made more explicit here. They > distinguish teams from “working groups”, where working groups work on > actually implementing what the team decided. > > How about starting with a web page listing these teams, their work, > their members, and ways to contact them? Teams would be the primary > contact point and for things that fall into their area and would be > responsible for channeling proposals and advancing issues in their area. > > What do people think?
I think it sounds great. The question remains what is the medium-space where through which the teams interact? How do we prevent teams from becoming silo'd off from one another? Do we have an "assembly" or an "assembler"? Should this become a matter for Guix Days? -- “In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni”
