Hi, On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 17:05 +0200, jpauli wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Herman Radtke <hermanrad...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> David, I think you're experienced enough to fill this role alone. > > > > > > One benefit to having two RM's is that Julien is learning from DSP. If > > there is a strong reason to have only one RM, then maybe we should consider > > a RM/vice-RM kind of pairing. > > That's it, the idea has never been to have confusion, but help the new > RM at well ... RMing. > Getting used to tools and processes is not an easy task for the > begining of RMing :-P Whoever is the new RM that said.
There are very few special processes. In fact the only RM-specific things are around packaging the tarballs up, while that's described in an README. Besides that all processes affect everybody in the community and everybody should be aware of it. The RM simply is the last instance to identify/judge if things are unclear. the requirements for that are a) knowing the code quite well b) knowing whom to ask for a given issue. both things are good qualifications for *any* contributor. In my mail I also suggested to "train" a successor later in the game. Nowadays,thanks to all the RFCs and so on, the role of the RM is on the one hand very limited and on the other hand requires maing clear decisions. And well, two persons give two clear decisions or increase workload for themselves (due to extra coordination) and everybody else (for having two guys to follow) I don't mind if an RM has an "assistant" or "apprentice" or such, but I want a clear responsibility - I always describe the role as "the one who takes the blame." All the good stuff comes from the contributors, the RM is the one who in the end didn't catch the mistakes. johannes -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
