incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From IngridvdM <Ingrid...@gmx-topmail.de>
Subject Re: Teams and Leads (was: Proposed short term goals)
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:47:00 GMT
Am 16.06.2011 11:52, schrieb Ian Lynch:
> On 16 June 2011 10:44, RA Stehmann<anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>  wrote:
>
>> IMO the things aren't very different, even you talk about "meritocracy"
>> and I about "democratic culture" (that is more than "one man, one
>> vote"). In their teams or communities leads have the same vote like
>> every other member.
>>
>> Also in the OpenOffice.org project people try to do their best to find a
>> consensus based on the respect to each other. There wasn't any
>> "benevolent dictator".
>>
>
> I guess the community manager Louis was the nearest thing to this. Question
> is whether the same structure is maintained or whether it needs to start
> afresh? How will that decision be made?
>
> In a bigger community you need some structure to work efficiently (see
>> for an example the Debian project). OpenOffice.org has tried to find
>> such a structure. Nothing is carved in stone. But something is worth to
>> keep.
>>
>
> The faster a structure is in place the quicker it will be to get going. OTOH
> the structure will have to have consensus to be accepted and it will have to
> have the possibility for change in the future.
>

I would like to try the structures and ways Apache has. That everybody 
has a voice at Apache and that the goal is to seek consensus by 
exchanging arguments is a very democratic aspect. That in the end those 
do that choose to participate more is the meritocratic aspect. I think 
this is highly fair.
I am not so convinced that the structures we had on old OOo have been 
good. Obviously there has been to much room for distrust and hidden 
discussions, so repeatedly individuals or whole groups felt excluded on 
multiple sides.

I am really in favor of going without anyone being named leader or 
manager or any name that could create the impression that this person 
has more rights than the others. Maybe we can choose 'contact' as a 
neutral description in case something turns out to be needed? Or is 
there even a more neutral word?

Christian Grobmeier has mentioned "workforces". That sounds interesting. 
Is there more about that in the documentation somewhere?

Ingrid


Mime
View raw message