The "Membership" section of the governance charter draft

[Miloslav Trmač]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Máirín Duffy <duffy at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On 10/31/2013 12:55 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>>> can you maybe provide what you were specifically thinking of when you
>>> mentioned 'server community,'
>
> On 10/31/2013 01:30 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> The role of server administrators
>
>>>   in your draft? Who were you thinking of /
>>> how would you define such a person?
>
>> Person that is active in his field but in essence you cannot apply any
>> particular role to a community of volunteers since the role they play is
>> what matters to *them* and what *they* decide at the moment they
>> contribute *their free time* to it.
>
> I think this is the point at which I can't follow. We appear to agree
> that being a member of the server community requires at least some
> experience in the role of being a server administrator.

I'll note that this is increasingly problematic.  The "good old days"
when every user was a programmer (at least a shell programmer), there
was not that much software to understand to manage (because disks were
small and developing software was slow), and when the system was held
together by shell scripts written by such users==programmers, and
therefore "scratching one's itch" was both possible and obviously the
correct way to design the system, are not really how the system works
today.

Both system administration and software development are now vast
fields with a lot of knowledge to master that make it really difficult
to do well in both.  So, we need people experienced with both, not
system administrators exclusively.


> Also, as a summary which might make this easier to follow since we're
> covering a lot of things not necessarily specific to the membership
> section of the governance charter, here's some of the loose threads I
> think we should take up either in other threads, in IRC, or at a meeting:
>
> - What exactly is a PRD? What are some examples of good PRDs?
<snip similar questions>

Can we please not recurse into meta-discussions and
meta-meta-discussions as a precondition to getting PRD content done?
I expect the difficult part will be agreeing on the actual content; if
we see a draft and decide that some parts are unnecessary or missing,
we can address that at that time.
     Mirek