On 6 October 2010 09:19, Ahmad Samir <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 October 2010 08:58, Oliver Burger <[email protected]> wrote: >> "Romain d'Alverny" <[email protected]> schrieb am 2010-10-06 >>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 20:42, Oliver Burger <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> > In technical things I support two or more levels. There's much to learn >>> > for little community packagers as myself as there is in any field for >>> > the newcommers. >>> But in last resort, not only involved, but committed people get a >>> decisive voice. In teams, those committed people are those who were >>> recognized as such by their peers, through the mentoring process. >>> >>> Which process is not an exclusive one (keep "bad" newcomers out), but >>> an inclusive one (welcome and train them before they get full hands on >>> the infrastructure). And that, again, wouldn't prevent non-'masters' >>> and 'non-apprentices' to provide/contribute something to the project, >>> only should it be reviewed and committed to the project by those team >>> members. >> As said before. There is no problem with having "masters" and "padawans" (I >> would prefer that term to apprentice :D ) when it comestotechnical decisions. >> I hope that all (orat least most) people involvedin mageia will let the >> people >> with the technical knowledge do the technical decisions (althoug some >> discussions on the mls do read different). >> I do understand and support the need for reviewing the work ofnew packagers, >> correcting it and teaching those new packagers how to build better packages >> but that is - as I said - a technical decision, in which nothing at all can >> be >> said against a master-padawan-thing. Even if those new packagers have >> builtrpms for years (because I have seen quite some rpms fromlocal >> communities >> whose spec files made me shudder). >> But I do believe, when it comes to policy decisions (like electing board >> members and so on) there should not be those who have a vote and those >> whodoesn't. Certainly there must be some kind of differentiation between >> active >> community members and passers-by who just want to "troll vote". But as you >> described it initially, a majority of the active community members (like >> those >> poor folks who did community work for years now in their local communities) >> would be excluded from deciding the directionthe community as a whole does >> take. >> >> Oliver >> > > I don't think it'll happen this way. It's not going to be some people > will be in charge of decision making forever. > > If you look at the association board itself, you'll see that it'll be > replaced by third every year; it's built this way. So even a new > packager, once he proves his commitment/competence, becomes an old > packager. > > Note that a period of time is needed for a new guy who starts > working/contributing in a new place to gain people's trust/confidence. > (trust is gained not given, right?). > > (For example you, in MUD, you have a packaging team; say you, > doktor5000 and tigger-gg are the old packagers (though girls never get > older than 30 ;)); a new guy wants to contribute, he must will take > some time to prove his worth / that he can be trusted / competence > before you give him decision-making privileges. He'll be the new guy > until a new new guy joins.). > > -- > Ahmad Samir >
P.S. I forgot to say I like the term "padawans" too. -- Ahmad Samir
