[Mageia-discuss] Mageia governance model draft

Wed Oct 6 00:52:41 CEST 2010

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 17:48, Tux99 <tux99-mga at uridium.org> wrote:
+> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
+>> Teams are made of at least two sub-groups (from a credentials point of view):
+>>  * "Apprentices" (people being mentored into the team - someone
+>> suggested "petit scarabée" as a label but...)
+>>  * and "Masters".
+>>
+> [...]
+>
+> Romain, that sound like a very rigid regimented structure that I fear
+> will cause "i'm better than you" kind of feelings, etc.
+
+I understand it could be felt/seen like that, but that's not at all
+the point and it shouldn't be understood like that. I don't think you
+can find a role name, anyway, that wouldn't be used as vanity title -
+vanity is not in the title, it's in the holder.
+
+> I don't see the point in strictly classifying people in either masters
+> or slaves (sorry, freudian slip, i meant apprentices) because skill
+> levels are a lot more varied and fluid than just two classes.
+
+It's not about people skills per se, but about their introduction
+within the team and its processes. You wouldn't give a full write
+access to some code repository without knowing enough about
+committer's capability and code guide understanding? It's not about
+excluding, it's about proper inclusion (being mentored by someone
+experienced in the team, knowing how the whole thing works, and
+getting in).
+
+That doesn't prevent a new apprentice to demonstrate she already
+masters the whole thing and then, great.
+
+> Of course there will be mentors and mentored but there is no need to
+> create a rigid two class structure with priviledges for the master
+> class.
+
+It's rigid (who votes, who doesn't / who has write/production commit,
+who doesn't) in that it could be needed in last resort or for
+practical purpose at this time. And that a team leader, for instance,
+wouldn't be elected if not already recognized by her peer team members
+(hence, having done it through the mentoring program).
+
+But that wouldn't prevent the whole team to have a larger consensus
+making culture, if it can.
+
+Does that answer you?
+
+Cheers,
+
+Romain
+