proposed new team structure

James E Keenan jkeen at
Tue Oct 26 11:09:38 UTC 2010

Christoph Otto wrote:
> This
> is a pretty radical change from the current approach, but we also think
> it will be a significant improvement in our process and and in improving
> our bus numbers.

My sense from reading through discussion on #parrot yesterday is that 
people are, in fact, interested in working in groups that have a defined 
scope and time horizon.

1. In response to user shockwave's comments about his experiences trying 
to embed Parrot on one of whiteknight's blog posts, there appears to be 
considerable interest in overhauling our APIs and documentations in that 
area.  I saw at least four developers and/or contributors suggesting ideas.

Suppose we call this "Task Force Embedding."  It falls under the general 
rubric of what we've been calling Product Management.  If it is not 
quite "the" Product Management team, it is at least "a" product 
management team.  I would like to encourage those who participated in 
the discussion about embedding yesterday to constitute themselves as a 
focused task force and to create a Trac ticket outlining the plan of 
action for the task force.

2.  Similarly, it appears that at long last we're seeing some momentum 
toward working on Lorito.  This falls more under the rubric of 
Architecture and Design and, again, if not "the" Architecture and Design 
team, certainly sounds like "Task Force Lorito" underneath A&D.  I would 
like to encourage those who have been partaking in that discussion to 
constitute themselve as a Task Force, create a Trac ticket, etc.

One further suggestion: #parrotsketch is an underused resource.   While 
we reserve it for our Tuesday general meeting, we could certainly 
allocate time on other days for these task forces or teams to hold their 
own online meetings.

Thank you very much.

More information about the parrot-dev mailing list