Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sponsorship rules"
From ADempiere
This Wiki is read-only for reference purposes to avoid broken links.
(response to MikeJudd) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I'm not sure why this should be the case - often a developer cannot fully appreciate the task to be completed and may need to involve a Business Analyst or team. Therefore, the distinction of developer may not be truly representative. I suggest perhaps the recommendation would be to use a recognised member of the community. Contributions and reputations speak for themselves. | I'm not sure why this should be the case - often a developer cannot fully appreciate the task to be completed and may need to involve a Business Analyst or team. Therefore, the distinction of developer may not be truly representative. I suggest perhaps the recommendation would be to use a recognised member of the community. Contributions and reputations speak for themselves. | ||
| + | :Thanks Mike Judd for your comment above (u should sign it to save me checking the history log :-) ). Well, in response, i m recommending such rules (my suggestion for peer review and acceptance, not hard rules) so as to protect both and other parties. We regard contributors as priceless, and there are those who are really active, and thus shuld be counted in. For example we know the active ones at the moment such as Teo, Armen, Victor, Colin, etc. Now this is only regarding the developer. You can introduce more ceategory of personnel such as Business Analyst, Subject Matter Experts again we would prefer active and recognised ones such as Colin, Adaxa and yourself included. It is a relative rule. All this still doesnt exclusivates from others as we merely wish this rule to be 'desirable' and not mandatory. - [[User:Red1|Red1]] 17:40, 5 February 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 15:40, 5 February 2008
"That it be desirable that the developer paid is an active and recognised one"
I'm not sure why this should be the case - often a developer cannot fully appreciate the task to be completed and may need to involve a Business Analyst or team. Therefore, the distinction of developer may not be truly representative. I suggest perhaps the recommendation would be to use a recognised member of the community. Contributions and reputations speak for themselves.
- Thanks Mike Judd for your comment above (u should sign it to save me checking the history log :-) ). Well, in response, i m recommending such rules (my suggestion for peer review and acceptance, not hard rules) so as to protect both and other parties. We regard contributors as priceless, and there are those who are really active, and thus shuld be counted in. For example we know the active ones at the moment such as Teo, Armen, Victor, Colin, etc. Now this is only regarding the developer. You can introduce more ceategory of personnel such as Business Analyst, Subject Matter Experts again we would prefer active and recognised ones such as Colin, Adaxa and yourself included. It is a relative rule. All this still doesnt exclusivates from others as we merely wish this rule to be 'desirable' and not mandatory. - Red1 17:40, 5 February 2008 (EST)
