You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After reviewing the full content of the current learning path I found something that it is a bit confussed, or it can produce misunderstanding to the reader: the use of Host team vs Core team
The current content always refers to the Host Team, as the team who is owner or responsible of the repository project. That concept is fine, however, if we check the patterns, there is one identified as Core Team that represents exactly the same concept.
IMHO, it should be a consistency to identify the team owner of a InnerSource project. I think the Core Team concept fits better and it can be linked with the pattern. So, the reader can have a clear understanding that content is speaking about the same concept.
The following links have multiple references about Host Team that they could be replaced as Core Team, if it is perfectly replaced.
Thanks @rmarting. Sorry to not write for so long. I wrote most of these articles. In my mind, there is a slight distinction. A Host Team may do feature work on the codebase in addition to infrastructure, maintenance and community support work. A Core Team does not to feature work, but only the infrastructure, maintenance, and community support work that allows others to contribute the features.
Not sure best how to represent that? I don't think I've articulated my mental difference between the two up until this point.
P.S. As an interesting aside, there is a marting in the InnerSource Commons Slack, which is nearly the same as your GitHub username. Interesting!
After reviewing the full content of the current learning path I found something that it is a bit confussed, or it can produce misunderstanding to the reader: the use of Host team vs Core team
The current content always refers to the Host Team, as the team who is owner or responsible of the repository project. That concept is fine, however, if we check the patterns, there is one identified as Core Team that represents exactly the same concept.
IMHO, it should be a consistency to identify the team owner of a InnerSource project. I think the Core Team concept fits better and it can be linked with the pattern. So, the reader can have a clear understanding that content is speaking about the same concept.
The following links have multiple references about Host Team that they could be replaced as Core Team, if it is perfectly replaced.
Learning Path - Introduction
Learning Path - Contributor
Learning Path - Trusted Committer
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: