Mgmt, tools (was Re: new layout for the book (Gerard?))

Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational bill at nospam.dot
Mon Jan 12 09:40:23 PST 2004


On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, James Robertson wrote:

> Bill's LFS Login wrote:
> <snip>
>
> ><snip>

> This all comes down to communication and a decision tree.  If we are to
> continue, we _need_ to get this solved soon.  If Gerard is OK with us
> making decisions about the book without him, then we need a semi-formal
> if not approved decision plan on who(m) can make such decisions.  In a
> community driven project like this, we need consensus of some kind (not
> 100% for sure) on discussion points.  Many of the changes like what Greg
> has been up to are no brainers.  He is doing an excellent job of keeping
> the book current.  Bigger talking points like Kernel 2.6.0, structural
> changes like Alex's, major package changes, toolchain and the like need
> a better way to be handled.  I suggested earlier that we use Bugzilla to
> help in some way, but that is only a tool.  We need a management process
> before we can have a tool.
>
> Also, as much as I like what Alex is trying to do, it is not on the
> roadmap or "seen" by any of the other editors and detracts from the
> things we all have decided to work on.  If anything, it should be
> included with the XML redesign as I think it is a good fit there.  This
> is probably one of the reasons why "it got lost" in the shuffle.

I presume you saw Gerard's recent post that suggests putting into the
XML (IIRC)? So that part is good to go.

As to your points about the "getting lost..., need a management process
...", valid and being (slowly) addressed, as you know. It will take some
more time, but the basic framework is beginning to come together.

When that framework is finally in place, "Policies" can be developed
that will permit the semi-formalization of the decision-making. Voting
is not appropriate in all cases (I know you are aware) but can be a
useful tool. I've had some preliminary discussion with Anderson to keep
an eye out for a suitable tool while he was looking at some other
software for other polling applications. Although what he found (as of
my last check with him) didn't seem quite suitable, I've a reminder to
open this issue again in the future.

It will be appropriate once we have the framework in place and *basic*
policies established. At that time, Gerard will need to shake some time
free to help construct the policies that will permit him to have
confidence that an independent "management process" can function in a
way that is comfortable for him.

At about the same time, a re-examination of tools appropriate to various
tasks (polling, Bugzilla, ... for QA, as drivers, ...) should move to
the front burner.

BTW, it occurred to me a couple days ago that the Lfs.org team is not
generating a "mission statement". It also occurred to me that the
"Manifesto" may be all that is needed. It also occurred to me that I
should not write it because I (being in a humorous mood at the time)
envisioned the statement including all the ills I believed management
inflicted when I was a member of a very large organization. I believe
that version would be a good read, but useful only for its entertainment
value.

Do most think that the Lfs.org team needs to make one?

>
> James
>

-- 
Bill Maltby,
LFS Organizational
billATlinuxfromscratchDOTorg
Use fixed above line to mail me direct



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list