On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Bert Freudenberg<[email protected]> wrote: > On 26.08.2009, at 17:42, David Farning wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Michael Stone<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Tomeu, >>>> >>>> Frankly Michael, the only way I can read these posts from you is that >>>> you are frustrated because we aren't churning more work, regardless of >>>> how much we have achieved that is relevant to OLPC deployments. >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>> I do not accept that work I have managed to do in the past is sufficient >>> simply >>> because it was the work that I was able to do. Instead, I form or >>> disintegrate >>> this acceptance with reference to three external measures: >>> >>> * absolute standards of quality, e.g. as formed by acceptance testing >>> against >>> written design goals or user experiences, >>> >>> * relative standards of quality as evidenced by the respect and >>> participation >>> of specific individuals whose judgment I trust and whose biases seem >>> to me >>> to control for some of my obvious biases, and >>> >>> * freeform standards of quality as evidenced by what other people have >>> made from the work. >>> >>> I am therefore frustrated, for the reason you mention, because I believe >>> that >>> our work is achieves none of these standards of "good enough". >>> >>> (Unsurprisingly, I'm frustrated for some other reasons too, but that's >>> neither >>> here nor there.) >>> >>>> Do you have any actionable ideas about how to work better for our users? >>> >>> I perceive a double bind: I have lots of ideas, but ideas are cheap and >>> seem >>> most unwelcome here -- they're just "talk" instead of "do", aren't they? >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> P.S - Maybe a reasonable compromise on the double bind would be for me to >>> share >>> a small number of ideas, or to share as many ideas fit into a fixed >>> duration >>> conversation in a different medium? >> >> An effective way to become a respected member of on open source >> community is to start with small ideas and implement them. If the >> deliverable works, is useful, and meets coding standards it will be >> accepted. A couple of iterations through this: >> a: Produce improvements to the product. >> b. Help the contributor earn the respect of the current community so >> they will be encourage to participate and take on larger projects. >> >> That tends to open doors. >> >> Drive by ventings tend to shut them. >> >> david > > > I find dismissing Michael's points as "drive by venting" highly > inappropriate. >
During a thread in which someone expressed frustration about their ability to affect the Sugar Labs community, I pointed out two end points, along a spectrum, for interacting with a volunteer community... and the likely consequences of those interactions. Nothing more, nothing less. david _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
