[Mageia-discuss] Mageia governance model draft

Wed Oct 6 08:58:22 CEST 2010

"Romain d'Alverny" <rdalverny at gmail.com> schrieb am 2010-10-06
+> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 20:42, Oliver Burger <oliver.bgr at googlemail.com> 
+wrote:
+> > In technical things I support two or more levels. There's much to learn
+> > for little community packagers as myself as there is in any field for
+> > the newcommers.
+> But in last resort, not only involved, but committed people get a
+> decisive voice. In teams, those committed people are those who were
+> recognized as such by their peers, through the mentoring process.
+> 
+> Which process is not an exclusive one (keep "bad" newcomers out), but
+> an inclusive one (welcome and train them before they get full hands on
+> the infrastructure). And that, again, wouldn't prevent non-'masters'
+> and 'non-apprentices' to provide/contribute something to the project,
+> only should it be reviewed and committed to the project by those team
+> members.
+As said before. There is no problem with having "masters" and "padawans" (I 
+would prefer that term to apprentice :D ) when it comestotechnical decisions. 
+I hope that all (orat least most) people involvedin mageia will let the people 
+with the technical knowledge do the technical decisions (althoug some 
+discussions on the mls do read different).
+I do understand and support the need for reviewing the work ofnew packagers, 
+correcting it and teaching those new packagers how to build better packages 
+but that is - as I said - a technical decision, in which nothing at all can be 
+said against a master-padawan-thing. Even if those new packagers have 
+builtrpms for years (because I have seen quite some rpms fromlocal communities 
+whose spec files made me shudder).
+But I do believe, when it comes to policy decisions (like electing board 
+members and so on) there should not be those who have a vote and those 
+whodoesn't. Certainly there must be some kind of differentiation between active 
+community members and passers-by who just want to "troll vote". But as you 
+described it initially, a majority of the active community members (like those 
+poor folks who did community work for years now in their local communities) 
+would be excluded from deciding the directionthe community as a whole does 
+take.
+
+Oliver
+