[Koha] Proposal to form Koha Technical Committee

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

The process/workflow is simple:

1. Post your RFC on *both* the wiki and both lists.
2. Bump the post to the lists if you (as the author) feel that there
is not enough vetting, etc. going on.
3. If you (as the author) are actively promoting your RFC and it is
not getting enough discussion, feel free to complain loudly;
otherwise, don't complain.

I think the idea suggested in another thread of having a section of
the monthly news letter to highlight RFCs is a great idea. Perhaps it
could especially highlight those with fewer comments/discussion/etc.


Chris,

I think one of the problems is that the above-described simple
process/workflow is not articulated clearly anywhere.  There is a page (
http://koha-community.org/about/enhancing-koha/) that talks about varies
ways to use Bugzilla but no mention of RFCs and that part of the process.

Maybe adding a page that describes the process would help.  With some sample
RFCs.  And info on how that relates to Bugzilla.  Such a page could be
linked to from "For Librarians" as well as the "Get Involved" page and
possibly others.

Lori Ayre

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Chris Nighswonger <
cnighswonger at foundations.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Lenora Oftedahl <OFTL at critfc.org> wrote:
> >When the Release Manager is chosen and accepts the position, they
> understand what they are taking on, don't they?
>
> Just to clarify: It is *not* the responsibility of the RM to vet RFCs
> and pursue the critique, correction, and/or amending of them. The RM
> simply wields the final say over what is finally actually pushed.
> Clearly the RM should:
>
> 1. Be knowledgeable of RFCs which are proposed for the current version.
>
> 2. Lead by example in the matter of participation in the RFC process.
>
> However, to suggest that the RM bares the responsibility for doing the
> leg-work in the RFC process will probably reduce the future candidate
> pool of RM's due to fear of being worked to death.
>
> It is, in fact, the responsibility of the author of the RFC (or the
> author's employer) to promote that RFC and keep it before the
> community.
>
> And it is the responsibility of the *community* to vet, critique,
> correct, and/or amend RFCs.
>
> Historically there have been failures on both parts. Things are
> looking up, however.
>
> >
> > And if dates slip, well, gee, won't we be getting a better release due to
> the extra work?
>
> Again looking at history, the type of slippage traditionally seen is
> terrible for users, vendors, and clients of vendors. You cannot plan
> around an ever-moving date. People who might be considered crazy (like
> me) and run the cutting edge code probably don't care. But not
> everyone can afford those risks. This is a problem which can be and is
> being addressed.
>
> >
> > Again, I think we are slipping into the commercial vendor mode where more
> voices are being added for no purpose other than to make noise.
> >
>
> I agree with this.
>
> > I think adding a SINGLE person to the release team of RFC manager to make
> comments and organize RFC's might help the RM, but that's up to the Release
> Manager to choose someone they can work with.
>
> Really about the best we can get without *active* * community*
> participation is an RFC cheerleader. I'm not sure what there is here
> to manage.
>
> The process/workflow is simple:
>
> 1. Post your RFC on *both* the wiki and both lists.
> 2. Bump the post to the lists if you (as the author) feel that there
> is not enough vetting, etc. going on.
> 3. If you (as the author) are actively promoting your RFC and it is
> not getting enough discussion, feel free to complain loudly;
> otherwise, don't complain.
>
> I think the idea suggested in another thread of having a section of
> the monthly news letter to highlight RFCs is a great idea. Perhaps it
> could especially highlight those with fewer comments/discussion/etc.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list  http://koha-community.org
> Koha at lists.katipo.co.nz
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/attachments/20101109/bcc3b895/attachment.htm