[Koha] Proposal to form Koha Technical Committee

[Chris Nighswonger]

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