11:10 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/10/2012 12:58 PM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:49:54PM -0400, Robert Middleswarth
wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 03:48 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 15:27 -0400, Robert Middleswarth wrote:
>>> This week in the infra meeting the topic of a mission
>>> statement was talked about and I was asked to send out some
>>> suggestions and ask for feedback and combine the comments
>>> into a good mission statement. I tired to take what was
>>> talked about in the chat and looked at mission statements of
>>> other projects and this is what I came up with.
>>>
>>> Proposed Mission Statement:
>>>
>>> The Infrastructure (infra) team is a community services
>>> infrastructure team. It purpose is to manage in a
>>> professional manner the oVirt's project infrastructure
>>> following accepted professional standards of system
>>> administrators. These administrators volunteer their time
>>> to contribute to the oVirt project.
>> A few nits and reorganizations...
>>
>> The infra team is a community services infrastructure team made
>> up of volunteers. It purpose is to manage, in a professional
>> manner, the oVirt project's infrastructure following accepted
>> professional standards of system administrators.
> I like that one better :)
Provided you change 'It purpose' to 'Its purpose' I mostly like it.
Not sure about the double professional in there. What's the
difference between a professional manner and following accepted
professional standards? Maybe make it modern professional standards
as well.
I think we could possible drop the professional manner - that may be a
mental barrier to people, "Oh, we can't be playful? This sounds so
corporate. Etc."
For example:
"The oVirt Infrastructure (Infra) project is a community services
infrastructure team made up of volunteers. Its purpose is to manage
the oVirt project's infrastructure following both accepted
professional standards of system administrators and the open source
way."
The last bit is added to support our lack of a definition of
"community services infrastructure", which I use to mean, "Follows the
open source way in providing services - open, transparent,
appropriately low/high barriers, common tools, avoid NIH, etc."
Is "the open source way" sufficient without further explanation, or do
we need:
"... the open source way, meaning anyone is welcome to join the
project and gain trust and access through merit."
... and now it doesn't sound like a mission anymore. Would it be too
much to actually make a methodology part of the mission? I.e.,
teaching others to fish while fishing with them as a mission.
- - Karsten
- --
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFP/IxA2ZIOBq0ODEERAl3DAJ48n6NgZDTMNhEjkGwQZv5Vc351/gCggMcM
or4FdV8udyUxspdlkqbRkSA=
=Degf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----