[arch-dev-public] Proposal for a new organisation structure

[Allan McRae]

On 3/6/19 2:39 pm, Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public wrote:
> 3. I don't like that devs and TUs live aside each other instead of
> finally realizing themselves as community or group.
The TUs are set up as an independent organisation with their own bylaws.
 Many of those bylaws were implemented to keep independence from the
developer team.  Saying that, almost all developers have been a Trusted
User, and there is a decent overlap currently.  I mostly see this as a
responsibility divide.

> I think the
> community as itself would work much better if we would have user-access
> based package repositories and just 'maintainers', instead of this
> dev/TU split.

I agree that the distinction between [extra] and [community] is rather
limited.  I think we need a better definition of what [extra] is, and
move packages that don't fit that definition out of [extra] and into
[community] where both devs and TUs can maintain them.  Or even merge
those two repos.

>> As Gaetan already mentioned, the process is clear: somebody suggests a
>> new developer and we discuss until a consensus is reached. Feel free to
>> document that somewhere in our wiki if you think it needs to be
>> documented. If you have specific concerns with that process, feel free
>> to share them. However, I do not think anybody in the dev team ever had
>> any objections against that procedure.
>
> What interests me is why is this whole process not transparent and
> public? I mean we discuss adding new TUs publicly. Of course this
> dicussion comes with all its good and bad parts, but atleast it's
> transparent and people get a reason why they are not elected.

You are very much overthinking what goes on when deciding on a new
developer.  "Electing" a developer is very different than electing a TU.
 People given developer positions have probably been around for years
and are already doing the job before they get formally offered it.   So
it is a case of someone saying "this person should be a developer" and
the rest going "OK".  There is usually no discussion, because the
candidate is well known already, and has obviously been doing a good job
to even be nominated.  Having TU style discussions on the suitability of
a candidate makes no sense in that situation.

Allan