Hi Michael, :-) On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 19:40, Michael Meeks <[email protected]> wrote: > Well - this is my view :-) it is perhaps not a sensible view, I'm open > to persuasion, and luckily I don't make these decisions the SC / board > does / will, but here is my advice: > > In my view, authority is conferred by two ways: hard work, and > relationship. Those who do the hard work, and build the product, teams > and relationships, will naturally lead those teams. Hopefully they do > this not alone, but with others too. > > AFAICS - giving an artificial "job title" to someone does not always > help them build an effective team that works well with others; and > indeed, it can hinder work or create conflict. > > Worse - while we would hope that a job title would reflect a reality: > that of someone (or the people) doing the most work in a given community > - the OO.o experience has shown us that -sometimes- these titles are > handed out like candy to random individuals, who then cease to do useful > work, or practically disappear :-) It seems to me that detecting these > cases, and arbitrating / transfering / handing out official titles is > some political nightmare that cannot be easily imposed from outside the > sub-community, and can go badly wrong inside it. > > That is contrasted to a fairly natural shift in control as new people > arrive to do more work, and others start to do less: this is the reality > of Free Software projects, managing a continuous flux of change and > turnover of people. > > Of course, if the Board wants to create this sort of arbitration and > selection problem, I defer to their wisdom; but I'm personally against > it. Clearly there are some formal roles it is hard to live without: > board member, spokesperson etc. Others IMHO do not need to be clear cut, > and are best left fluid. > > Does that make (some) sense ? :-)
I must admit that I don't really agree with you, Michael. There is always need for organization and coordination in any human enterprise. Personally, I can't think of any viable, successful endeavour involving organized action that would work without them. Open Source has demonstrated that in the past - with positive examples and negative examples. But, IMHO, that principle is practically ubiquitous. > Members are expected to refrain from any kind of expression of > racism, xenophobia, sexism and religious or political > intolerance. > > This sounds like a vow of chastity :-) It appears to apply to the whole > of life, and not just to engagement with TDF etc. As such is is somewhat > offensive, and in itself an oxymoron: "I can't tolerate your > intolerance" ;-). Many communities have people with strong, colorful and > opposing views expressed in strong terms. This to me is a sign of health > and diversity - instead of some bland pea-soup of non-expression :-) Again, I'm afraid don't agree with you. One of the negative things about many FOSS projects is the kind of negative behavior, attitudes and treatment that people sometimes have to put up with - there have been several threads in the TDF lists where it has occurred. I suspect that there would be plenty of people who would support what I've written. In any case, you've had lots of time to read and comment. ;-) Me, I was extremely concerned from day #1 of the launch that TDF had not prepared things properly, and that it did not have a "draft constitution" to put before people right at the outset. But instead of just standing back and criticizing from a distance, I wanted to get involved in remedying the problem. Anyway, as we all well know, for every guy that says "Turn left!" there will be another that says "Turn right!" :-D In any case, I've done my best to be of practical help, and you guys are free to do what you will. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
