Liaison to Launchpad

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:02:04 +0100 Dave Morley <davmor2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>Some points I would like to make are as follows:
>
>1/ Why do we need this?  My thinking is as follows..
>If we had a member of the lp team come to our weekly meetings letting
>communications flow between the 2 teams would this not be better.

I agree that having someone come to our meetings is a good thing.

>2/ If we have a strict line of command when communicating with lp team
>through one person.  What happens if that person leaves the community
>(dies, move home, changes job etc).  What happens if he is on call and
>can't get our messages through till it's too late etc.

Having a liaison does not prevent other communication.  In MOTU, where we 
have been doing this for some time (including one transition to a new 
person), it has worked well to have one person who is the focus for big 
questions (like this prioritization effort) and can keep on top of 
Launchpad issues that are affecting the team.  That does not preclude 
individuals from having their own conversations with Launchpad developers.

I think you are making a straw man to knock down.  I don't think anyone 
suggested that no one else was allowed to talk to Launchpad people.

>3/ If the lp team member can't make it to the meeting they can ask
>someone else from the team to step in.
>
>So would it not be better to do things that way round instead? 

Not instead, but in addition.  I think it is good to have someone who is 
well positioned to represent QA concerns to Launchpad.  A LP developer is 
on the wrong side of the interface to do that effectively.

Scott K