jfs wrote:But why can't we have four main groups?
For about the fifth time, the big divisions are not groups of people. The idea is that the person in charge of a particular division does not manage a big group of people, e.g. a coding group. They manage a few small groups within their remit, e.g. several coding groups, including a portability group, stable group, cleanup group, etc. Ultimately, what we *don't* want is people saying "Yeah, I'm part of the coding group" and then not actually having something to do.ChrisCF wrote: ... remember that [large groups] is not what I'm proposing ...
Of course, having someone else in for content might be good, but we'd need to establish exactly where we draw the boundary, so as to not take too much work away from other areas.
