-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/10/2012 12:58 PM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden 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
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:49:54PM -0400, Robert Middleswarth wrote: 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-----