Proposal: Updating Jenkins officer role definitions ahead of the election

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal: Updating Jenkins officer role definitions ahead of the election

Oleg Nenashev
Dear all,

As discussed at the previous Governance meeting, I suggest to revise the definition of Jenkins Officer roles listed on this page. These roles were defined in 2015-2016 as a part of the original officers proposal, and the effective responsibilities have drifted from the original descriptions. It would be great to update the role definitions ahead of the elections, so that the nominees and voters can see actual responsibilities.

A few changes I would like to suggest:
  • Shift roles from doing the administrative/maintenance work on their own to coordinating the work inside the teams and SIGs led by the officers. While officers are responsible to ensure that the mission-critical community processes work, they are not expected to work on them single-handedly. More delegation and sharing responsibilities is a good thing for project sustainability.
  • Set expectations about onboarding new contributors to the teams, knowledge sharing, and facilitating contributions to the area of responsibility. All teams would benefit from having more contributors and clear requirements/ladder for those who want to take roles within the teams.
  • TBD: The bullet above might be even extended to having "shadow" or "deputy" officers as it was proposed by contributors in the past. Such approach could help to ensure healthy officer rotation in the project, with opportunity for officers to move on to other roles or to take a break when needed.
  • Add expectation about facilitating initiatives within the scope of the responsibility, and maintaining the team's roadmap.
A while ago I submitted https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/2943 for the event officer definition (follow-up to the previous PR by Alyssa Tong and Mark Waite). I suggest using it for collaborative editing of the role definitions. Please feel free to propose any changes in this thread or in the pull request.

Best regards,
Oleg Nenashev

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPfivLAzrxGi8JNuBNqd8ggzLSDpkii%2BADgyWWwLaik%3DAi%3D6dw%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Updating Jenkins officer role definitions ahead of the election

Oleg Nenashev
In addition to the list above, we would also like to significantly update the Events Officer definition to reflect changes in the JAM program and other community events. It is also in https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/2943 .

I will add the topics to the today's governance meeting

Best regards,
Oleg


On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 12:43:49 PM UTC+2 Oleg Nenashev wrote:
Dear all,

As discussed at the previous Governance meeting, I suggest to revise the definition of Jenkins Officer roles listed on this page. These roles were defined in 2015-2016 as a part of the original officers proposal, and the effective responsibilities have drifted from the original descriptions. It would be great to update the role definitions ahead of the elections, so that the nominees and voters can see actual responsibilities.

A few changes I would like to suggest:
  • Shift roles from doing the administrative/maintenance work on their own to coordinating the work inside the teams and SIGs led by the officers. While officers are responsible to ensure that the mission-critical community processes work, they are not expected to work on them single-handedly. More delegation and sharing responsibilities is a good thing for project sustainability.
  • Set expectations about onboarding new contributors to the teams, knowledge sharing, and facilitating contributions to the area of responsibility. All teams would benefit from having more contributors and clear requirements/ladder for those who want to take roles within the teams.
  • TBD: The bullet above might be even extended to having "shadow" or "deputy" officers as it was proposed by contributors in the past. Such approach could help to ensure healthy officer rotation in the project, with opportunity for officers to move on to other roles or to take a break when needed.
  • Add expectation about facilitating initiatives within the scope of the responsibility, and maintaining the team's roadmap.
A while ago I submitted https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/2943 for the event officer definition (follow-up to the previous PR by Alyssa Tong and Mark Waite). I suggest using it for collaborative editing of the role definitions. Please feel free to propose any changes in this thread or in the pull request.

Best regards,
Oleg Nenashev

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/dbd6b25d-66a2-4907-9b7b-4ad73cd7df7cn%40googlegroups.com.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Updating Jenkins officer role definitions ahead of the election

Olblak-2
Hi Oleg,

I totally agree with you, officer role are not one man jobs. I find it more accurate to highlight that they are about coordinating the different initiatives and finding contributors than being the person who's suppose to work on those.



I will add the topics to the today's governance meeting

Best regards,
Oleg

On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 12:43:49 PM UTC+2 Oleg Nenashev wrote:
Dear all,

As discussed at the previous Governance meeting, I suggest to revise the definition of Jenkins Officer roles listed on this page. These roles were defined in 2015-2016 as a part of the original officers proposal, and the effective responsibilities have drifted from the original descriptions. It would be great to update the role definitions ahead of the elections, so that the nominees and voters can see actual responsibilities.

A few changes I would like to suggest:
  • Shift roles from doing the administrative/maintenance work on their own to coordinating the work inside the teams and SIGs led by the officers. While officers are responsible to ensure that the mission-critical community processes work, they are not expected to work on them single-handedly. More delegation and sharing responsibilities is a good thing for project sustainability.
  • Set expectations about onboarding new contributors to the teams, knowledge sharing, and facilitating contributions to the area of responsibility. All teams would benefit from having more contributors and clear requirements/ladder for those who want to take roles within the teams.
  • TBD: The bullet above might be even extended to having "shadow" or "deputy" officers as it was proposed by contributors in the past. Such approach could help to ensure healthy officer rotation in the project, with opportunity for officers to move on to other roles or to take a break when needed.
  • Add expectation about facilitating initiatives within the scope of the responsibility, and maintaining the team's roadmap.
A while ago I submitted https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/2943 for the event officer definition (follow-up to the previous PR by Alyssa Tong and Mark Waite). I suggest using it for collaborative editing of the role definitions. Please feel free to propose any changes in this thread or in the pull request.

Best regards,
Oleg Nenashev


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/95e5479e-b906-4d25-891f-b2aed94aeea7%40www.fastmail.com.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Updating Jenkins officer role definitions ahead of the election

Mark Waite-2
I like the idea very much.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:50 AM 'Olblak' via Jenkins Developers <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Oleg,

I totally agree with you, officer role are not one man jobs. I find it more accurate to highlight that they are about coordinating the different initiatives and finding contributors than being the person who's suppose to work on those.



I will add the topics to the today's governance meeting

Best regards,
Oleg

On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 12:43:49 PM UTC+2 Oleg Nenashev wrote:
Dear all,

As discussed at the previous Governance meeting, I suggest to revise the definition of Jenkins Officer roles listed on this page. These roles were defined in 2015-2016 as a part of the original officers proposal, and the effective responsibilities have drifted from the original descriptions. It would be great to update the role definitions ahead of the elections, so that the nominees and voters can see actual responsibilities.

A few changes I would like to suggest:
  • Shift roles from doing the administrative/maintenance work on their own to coordinating the work inside the teams and SIGs led by the officers. While officers are responsible to ensure that the mission-critical community processes work, they are not expected to work on them single-handedly. More delegation and sharing responsibilities is a good thing for project sustainability.
  • Set expectations about onboarding new contributors to the teams, knowledge sharing, and facilitating contributions to the area of responsibility. All teams would benefit from having more contributors and clear requirements/ladder for those who want to take roles within the teams.
  • TBD: The bullet above might be even extended to having "shadow" or "deputy" officers as it was proposed by contributors in the past. Such approach could help to ensure healthy officer rotation in the project, with opportunity for officers to move on to other roles or to take a break when needed.
  • Add expectation about facilitating initiatives within the scope of the responsibility, and maintaining the team's roadmap.
A while ago I submitted https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/2943 for the event officer definition (follow-up to the previous PR by Alyssa Tong and Mark Waite). I suggest using it for collaborative editing of the role definitions. Please feel free to propose any changes in this thread or in the pull request.

Best regards,
Oleg Nenashev


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/95e5479e-b906-4d25-891f-b2aed94aeea7%40www.fastmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAO49JtG67t2coSmUordK2CnigA1CtNzg464a7WHh%2BTJ1snnYgg%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal: Updating Jenkins officer role definitions ahead of the election

Oleg Nenashev
Since there is no other feedback, I will go ahead and implement the proposal.
The version will be available before the tomorrow's governance meeting so that we can review the pull request there and vote on it

On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 1:58:01 PM UTC+2 Mark Waite wrote:
I like the idea very much.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:50 AM 'Olblak' via Jenkins Developers <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Oleg,

I totally agree with you, officer role are not one man jobs. I find it more accurate to highlight that they are about coordinating the different initiatives and finding contributors than being the person who's suppose to work on those.



I will add the topics to the today's governance meeting

Best regards,
Oleg

On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 12:43:49 PM UTC+2 Oleg Nenashev wrote:
Dear all,

As discussed at the previous Governance meeting, I suggest to revise the definition of Jenkins Officer roles listed on this page. These roles were defined in 2015-2016 as a part of the original officers proposal, and the effective responsibilities have drifted from the original descriptions. It would be great to update the role definitions ahead of the elections, so that the nominees and voters can see actual responsibilities.

A few changes I would like to suggest:
  • Shift roles from doing the administrative/maintenance work on their own to coordinating the work inside the teams and SIGs led by the officers. While officers are responsible to ensure that the mission-critical community processes work, they are not expected to work on them single-handedly. More delegation and sharing responsibilities is a good thing for project sustainability.
  • Set expectations about onboarding new contributors to the teams, knowledge sharing, and facilitating contributions to the area of responsibility. All teams would benefit from having more contributors and clear requirements/ladder for those who want to take roles within the teams.
  • TBD: The bullet above might be even extended to having "shadow" or "deputy" officers as it was proposed by contributors in the past. Such approach could help to ensure healthy officer rotation in the project, with opportunity for officers to move on to other roles or to take a break when needed.
  • Add expectation about facilitating initiatives within the scope of the responsibility, and maintaining the team's roadmap.
A while ago I submitted https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/2943 for the event officer definition (follow-up to the previous PR by Alyssa Tong and Mark Waite). I suggest using it for collaborative editing of the role definitions. Please feel free to propose any changes in this thread or in the pull request.

Best regards,
Oleg Nenashev


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/700aa3c9-ac2f-4c79-9007-c30c7de902b2n%40googlegroups.com.