[Batteries-discuss] Members and "roles" on OCamlForge

bluestorm bluestorm.dylc at gmail.com
Sat Mar 26 10:48:15 CET 2011


This is a discussion of a both non-technical and non-important matter. I
would like to know if it's worth changing the "roles" on the Ocamlcore page
for Batteries :

In my opinion, the distinction between "junior" and "senior" developper in
particular is borderline ridiculous, and I'm certainly not particularly
worth any specific "Admin" status. I would be quite happy with an equal
"developper" status for everybody. Actually I have considered these roles
useless and meaningless for a long time, and not bothered to change anything
about it because it would be a waste of time and energy.
However, "roles" are quite apparent on the Ocamlcore batteries webpages, and
I think external users may give meaning to it. Moreover, as always in such
subjective matters, it may carry a signification to some of the other
project members, with which I have never discussed the question. I would be
surprised to learn that some of them/you feel vexed for being "just a junior
developper" or something like that, but that would be, in some sense,
justified, as currently everyone is free to attach any meaning to these

As I have been wakened by some mail request from the ocamlcore services to
have a look at that "roles" page again, I am in the short time span where I
have the energy to waste time on the subject, and I come here to propose a
"roles" organisation that would better reflect *my* conception of the
"roles" in the batteries project (ie., that they are useless) and, I think,
avoid possible misunderstanding in the future :

- have a single "developper" role which all current members would have
- have a "webadmin" role that would grant right to administrate the
ocamlcore webpages (the only useful bit of the "admin" role for now), that
would be granted to the current "admin" members, in addition to the
"developpers" status (yes, the forge support multiple roles)

The "webadmin" status would be a way to keep a slightly more limited set of
people having the admin rights on the website (why? because you don't want
to receive a mail everytime <non-interesting-website-related-action>
happen), while making it explicit that it is not an specially honorific
status (while "Admin" may be considered superior to "Developper" by some

I think David Teller and Edgar Friendly would deserve a specific honorific
title for being the de-facto (former and present) leader of the project, but
more importantly for having done a lot of the hard work. I suggest Michael
Ekstrand, which has done a lot for Batteries lately, would also be entitled
to such a distinction. I would be open to adding something honorific to the
"roles" if you feel it's a good idea (please suggest a good role name for
that), but I think it rather has its place in a "Contributions" section of a
README listing all contributors to the project.

(Ah, and I think the "doc writer" role should die a quick death and never be
seen again. Writing documentation is being a developper, and all developers
should write documentation. And tests. Please feel guilty if you don't.)

What do you think ?
My understanding is that most of you don't care about all that and don't
want to waste time discussing the matter. Feel free to answer quickly
whether :
1. you would prefer the status quo, with no changes to the current roles
2. you like my "neutral" suggestion better
No justification asked. Of course, I you prefer to discuss it thoroughly and
suggest improvements to my proposition, please do.

If there is a clear consensus on the matter (including no replies by
anyone), I will do the change when I feel like it. I there is no clear
consensus, I won't change anything.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.forge.ocamlcore.org/pipermail/batteries-discuss/attachments/20110326/4d7529ed/attachment.html>

More information about the Batteries-discuss mailing list