On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I'm in favor of option (C), mainly because I think that titles are pointless and lead to hat collecting and hurt feelings.
Titles are useful for a few things: * Prospects of future employment * Clarity around who to talk to about what
I respect Brion, Mark and Tim (and many others) as architects because they *are* architects, not because we call them such.
We call them such, because they are such - it is a useful designation.
For RFCs, I've been of the opinion we've made them entirely too formal. I'm glad we're trying to move them forward, but I've always thought they should be based on community consensus, not convincing an architect.
Generally agreed, although I think this is more of a procedural point and perhaps orthogonal to roles/titles and what they mean.