fineract-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <Ross.Gard...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: Jira Workflow
Date Fri, 01 Jan 2016 17:27:18 GMT
:-) email is a really bad communication medium sometimes. In this case my mentioning of voting
drew attention away from the important point of your concern - cultural awareness. Had I inserted
the words "for example" when mentioning voting perhaps this would not have been the case.

Anyway, no harm done, I hope.

Ross


-----Original Message-----
From: Myrle Krantz [mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 4:54 PM
To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Jira Workflow

Ross responded to my concern as though it had something to do with voting. It doesn't.

Greets,
Myrle


> On 01.01.2016, at 17:34, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What??
> 
> Your sentence is so meta, with shades of PC, that I don't even know 
> what you said.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Myrle Krantz <mkrantz@mifos.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Just a little corrective to your perception of my intention:  I did 
>> not raise this concern as a defense to my voting suggestion.
>> 
>> Greets,
>> Myrle
>> 
>> 
>> *Myrle Krantz*
>> Solutions Architect
>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&
>> data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c57901e6a358a4b91b31608d
>> 312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=49ufQ9DXdOgceJ
>> rN0fvwNQoqn0YjoMLVjLPic97cjMA%3d | 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos
>> .org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c57901e6a358a4b91b3
>> 1608d312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ckff7%2bb
>> uzpCQ1%2bXtFLGtAvuB3d7P8o8otFssGpcOALM%3d
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fface
>> book.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c57901e
>> 6a358a4b91b31608d312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sda
>> ta=JSor5aMFYArSti7hCKGoAv003OAUOc1gsqYwK%2bWMCoU%3d>  
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.
>> twitter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c579
>> 01e6a358a4b91b31608d312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&
>> sdata=rrjr6WTOjToTQCa9TN66MlUh3qiaervPZ2TTPs4t1%2bg%3d>
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Ross Gardler 
>> <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Your observations are good ones. Cultural awareness is very important.
>>> 
>>> The "trick" that I've found to work is to speak and act in a way 
>>> that encourages participation. Take the time to send a few sentences
>> indicating
>>> that *EVERYONE* has a voice here and that their voice is of equal 
>>> weight
>> to
>>> everyone elses.
>>> 
>>> Voting is not a mechanism that brings consensus. As others have said 
>>> it creates divides. There are winners and losers. Furthermore, if 
>>> the only person who sees the inherent flaw in the proposal is 
>>> someone without a binding vote how can they make a difference in a 
>>> vote in which their vote doesn't count and even if it did it would be one against
many.
>>> 
>>> Better is to make it clear that anyone with a concern should raise it.
>>> Then ensure that concern is discussed and addressed to the 
>>> satisfaction
>> of
>>> the whole community.
>>> 
>>> The way to make this happen is not to create rules about how 
>>> decisions
>> are
>>> made. It's to create a culture of sharing and respect. A culture in 
>>> which listening and doing is more valuable than talking and 
>>> defining. It's
>> about
>>> accepting "good enough" is an excellent contribution while 
>>> incremental improvements that take us from "good enough" to "even 
>>> better" are equally valuable.
>>> 
>>> You are absolutely correct to worry that this is more difficult in 
>>> some cultures than in others. You should continue to do so. Call for 
>>> specific input from the community as a whole. Ensure you leave space 
>>> for people to contribute how *they* choose to do so. Basically 
>>> actions within the community speak much loader than words in a policy or process
document.
>>> 
>>> With that in mind, does anyone here have a feeling for what the 
>>> right balance is between process and policy for this community?
>>> 
>>> Ross
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Myrle Krantz [mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 2:48 PM
>>> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>>> 
>>> I'm actually most concerned about this aspect of making this an 
>>> Apache project.
>>> 
>>> I can't find a fully politically correct way to say this, so to the
>> extent
>>> that I'm replacing individuals with stereotypes, I apologize.  I do 
>>> know that people vary from their cultural norms.  I don't know my 
>>> fellow contributors very well. I'm asking this in full recognition 
>>> of my ignorance, hoping that people who know more will correct me.
>>> 
>>> Some of our contributors come from cultures with a low power 
>>> distance and some come from cultures with a high power distance (US: 40/100,
Germany:
>>> 35/100, Netherlands: 38/100, India 77/100)+.
>>> 
>>> The Apache approach seems to assume that all participants view 
>>> themselves as equal, or at least have a realistic view of how their 
>>> personal merit allows them to contribute to a discussion.  But it is 
>>> possible that those contributors who come from a high-power-distance 
>>> culture, might allow themselves to be cut out of a discussion by a gradient of
power.
>> Indeed, I
>>> haven't seen many objections coming from our Indian colleagues to 
>>> what we've been suggesting. Even though they are more likely to have 
>>> a customer-contact informed opinion.
>>> 
>>> From my American perspective, I believe we need to find a way to
>> encourage
>>> more active participation in these cases.  At the same time based on 
>>> my reading, I'm not sure that colleagues who come from a 
>>> high-power-distance culture even want a level playing field.  I'm 
>>> pretty sure it is not possible to impose a level-playing field if it's unwanted.
>>> 
>>> So the questions are:
>>> 
>>> * Is this even true? Are our Indian colleagues (or anyone else) 
>>> withholding important reservations? (My source could just be wrong.)
>>>  * Is this really going to be a problem?
>>>    * Is there a way to solve this? Or at least ameliorate it?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Happy New Year from Germany,
>>> Myrle Krantz
>>> 
>>> 
>>> + Source "Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind" Geert 
>>> + Hofstede
>>> and Gert Jan Hofstede pages 43-44
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *Myrle Krantz*
>>> Solutions Architect
>>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
>>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype:
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&
>> data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d
>> 312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BE%2fKBTIg2NNg
>> LVwATGg5zMrFWB77RqCPpqX%2bGMU%2bK5c%3d
>>> |
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos
>> .org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c
>> 4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H8V6JqQ3H
>> 3zB9F73A8726jutKqQVHDvI3IUnW195s2s%3d
>>> <
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ffaceb
>> ook.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed9606
>> 1934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdat
>> a=9dvCR8tKj53N0m8q7b13A8yA3l0z8V6M59jLkZH0Wy4%3d
>>> 
>>> <
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.t
>> witter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed9
>> 6061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&s
>> data=Oxxo2M8RnRRF4iuW66z0kui0GunjG3bzntXZ0KsCmOI%3d
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ross Gardler 
>>> <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +1 - no leaders around here, just people doing the work. An ASF 
>>>> +project is
>>>> "led" by whoever is active, that means lots of leaders at any one time.
>>>> Those "leaders" are always answerable to the community as a whole.
>>>> 
>>>> This might often seem like it is "nit-picking", it's just a 
>>>> language thing in most cases, especially when those doing the work 
>>>> have the full (silent) support of the community as a whole. 
>>>> However, if there is ever a time that the people doing the work 
>>>> appear to be heading in the wrong direction the flat structure of 
>>>> an Apache project becomes extremely important. For this reason language is
very important.
>>>> 
>>>> Ross
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:45 AM
>>>> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro < 
>>>> terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>>> the discretion of our
>>>>> (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion 
>>>>> Ross and fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
>>>> 
>>>> We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
>>>> 
>>>> Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community, 
>>>> but will pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you. 
>>>> I can help with describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
>>>> 
>>>> Happy New Years!
>>>> -g
>> 
Mime
View raw message