On 10/02/06 at 13:18 +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: > On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:37, Matt Palmer wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:38:17PM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: > > > On Thursday 09 February 2006 14:06, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > On 09/02/06 at 12:57 +0000, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > > > > These thoughts lead directly to the questions "What are we MOTUs, why > > > > > do we work in the MOTU Team, where did we come from, and where do we > > > > > go tomorrow". Strange questions, but necessary, I think. > > > > > > > > Add: What can be expected from a MOTU regarding quality, dedication, > > > > etc. This is similar to the questions about contribution to Debian. And > > > > there's really no easy answer. > > > > > > You can't expect anything from a volunteer. > > > > No, you can't *force* a volunteer to do anything. That's not the same > > thing as "no expectations". I think it's reasonable to set a number of > > expectations of MOTUs, document them, and then require that, if you want to > > be part of the team, that you abide by those expectations. If you are > > unwilling or unable to meet the necesary expectations, it's "thanks for > > your contributions, but you're off the team". > > You can't force or expect anything from someone. The volunteer is starting > his > work because he wants to. He will end his work, because he wants to, has no > time anymore or whatever reason he has. > The Ubuntu way of handling this is, document your work, become a Member, and > after some time, become an ubuntu-dev with universe/multiverse upload rights. > The Ubuntu / ubuntu-dev membership won't last forever, they are limited to 1 > to 2 years. If they're not renewed you loose your rights automatically. Thx > to LP. > This is different from Debian, where someone has to write a lot of emails and > waiting for no response to set the maintainer as MIA.
It's funny how Ubuntu sometimes seem to chose automatic procedures where Debian prefers "human-based" procedures. I'm not sure it's better in all cases. > > "No expectations" is, IMO, one of the leading causes of problems in > > volunteer organisations. Nobody feels a need to do anything beyond > > "because I want to at the moment", and things fall apart. In the larger > > context, society works on expectations -- courtesy, norms, and so on, are > > all expectations that society "in general" applies to it's members. > > That's right, and that's the reason why "volunteer only distribution" will > never succeed. Debian (as volunteer only org) will never see officially > supported commercial apps, but Ubuntu/Progeny/insert your favorite > (semi-commercial) debian derivative here, will see them. I think it shocking that a developer of a free GNU/Linux distribution considers "official support of proprietary applications" a well-suited indicator for measuring success. > For me, volunteers are coming and are going. It's a continous flow of "human > resources" over time. Is that bad? No. > It's only a matter of fact, that volunteer only organisations are just a > "hobby". I strongly urge you to read Martin Michlmayr's papers about management of volunteers in free software organizations. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
