[Bf-committers] Modules simplification (and members cleanup)
Sybren A. Stüvel
sybren at blender.org
Wed Nov 20 16:15:06 CET 2019
On 20-11-19 15:39, Julian Eisel wrote:
> One thing that Sybren pointed out is that we should have a very
> precise definition of the roles first. Let's make misunderstandings
> hard. Then we can come up with suiting names.
Yup. I see too many discussions go back and forth between defining names
for the roles and defining the roles themselves.
I think Blender would benefit from a bit more scientific approach to how
we name things and how we write things down. In a (well-written)
scientific paper, one would use clearly defined terminology, either as
defined in other papers or by including the definition in the paper
itself. This I think applies to Blender as wel. There are many places
where the terminology is unclear, from the definition of roles to terms
in the user interface (just to name one example, the word "tweak" is
used a lot in the UI, but, until recently, was not defined anywhere). If
we want to make Blender more welcoming to new developers, ensuring that
they can actually understand and speak the same language as established
developers seems like a good idea.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should all stop working and give
this full priority. I do feel that this could be gradually improved,
though, and should be an area that gets attention during code &
> 1) Member
> With the definition you just gave for that role it sounds like a
> reasonable one. Just one question: Aren't they responsible for making
> decisions too?
I think we should distinguish between "capable" and "responsible". AFAIK
module members are capable of making decisions, but the
owner/coordinator is the one with the final say in things, i.e.
responsible for the final outcome.
I agree with your other points :)
dr. Sybren A. Stüvel
Blender Software Developer
More information about the Bf-committers