On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 16:27 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: > Jacqueline McNally wrote: > > I see no point in responding to the antagonism, sarcasm and caustic tone > > in the previous post. > > Which previous post? Surely not the one from Daniel that you > quoted at the bottom of your note, nor the previous one in the > thread, which was from Ryan Singer. > > I can see no trace of "antagonism, sarcasm and caustic tone" in > either of these notes, nor the one from Bernhard Dippold, the > next previous one in the thread, nor any of the others, with two > exceptions...
I have to concur. What's with all the paranoia? Surely the collective aim is to promote OOo? Ok, we will disagree sometimes on the best way to do it and the project leads are going to have to accept that volunteers will sometimes/often make their own judgements about the best place to put their resources. After all, no-one is actually paying anyone to take on the "marketing plan" or attendance at any particular show so why expect anything different? This is a volunteer project, its not a corporate with employment contracts. Different people are going to like different styles of working, that is just something we have to live with. The leadership skill is in getting people to do what you want them to do. In my experience, encouragement is far more effective than saying no. Trying to control resources that you don't own is not likely to be helped with coersive tactics or reactionary responses. The project does not own the community, the community owns the project. Its a difficult job providing leadership in this setting and the leads will take some flack from time to time, that goes with the job, but let's all try to be sensitive to the fact that many of them are volunteers too. The fact that Ryan's proposal to attend DLS has caused such a storm is nothing short of astonishing. Why is it seen as such a threat to OOo for the Marcon in an area to propose going to a local show especially when there is no specific cost implication to anyone else? How appropriate is it for the one person who is paid and not a volunteer to veto the suggestion unilaterally? Then to change his mind and decide its a matter for the Community Council entirely bypassing the leadership of the marketing project? All this seems to me to be a complete over-reaction. As a rule of thumb, let people get on with it and encourage them. Only say no if it really, really is going to do harm to getting OOo out there. In such circumstances people will generally listen to the reasons why. Let's get away from personal invective and concentrate on increasing the take up of OOo and just accept that its not possible to centrally control a volunteer community that is more rooted in the anarchy of the bazaar than the hierarchy of the cathedral. Regards, -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
