Re: Formalizing teams

[Blake Shaw <blake@nonconstructivism.com>]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@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”