On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:42:51 +0200 Denis MARCOUREL <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 05/10/2010 23:06, Romain d'Alverny a écrit : > > That does not prevent listening, collecting and taking into > > account feedback, contributions, opinions from everyone. But > > those who commit to a given team work and processes get to > > organize and ponder all this to fit in the whole project. > > For optimum performance (not to mention perfection), I think "it > suffices" to establish basic rules of management, to avoid > "anarchy" and "a waste" of time and energy. > There is no question of hierarchy, but to accept our levels of > knowledge and competence. So I'm just a basic user, and I simply > and humbly admit that I hardly understand explanations of a > recognized and experienced developer. > If I have a question or comment, I share those with my level L, > and the next level "higher" L +1. The answer is known ? > Everything is OK. Otherwise the problem is studied by those at > level L+1 and L +2. And so on until the response. > That seems more than acceptable, because there is no shame in > accepting what we are. > > Cordially > Denis We also need to understand that one person might be at different levels in different circumstances - for example, a packager who works on OpenOffice might need newbie-level help when starting to use Amarok. However expert we are in our own specialist field, we are all newbies at something we haven't tried before! -- Margot ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ **Otford Ducks Computers** We teach, you learn... ...and, if you don't do your homework, we set the cat on you! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
