[Mageia-discuss] Mageia governance model draft

Wed Oct 6 09:19:15 CEST 2010

On 6 October 2010 08:58, Oliver Burger <oliver.bgr at googlemail.com> wrote:
+> "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
+>
+
+I don't think it'll happen this way. It's not going to be some people
+will be in charge of decision making forever.
+
+If you look at the association board itself, you'll see that it'll be
+replaced by third every year; it's built this way. So even a new
+packager, once he proves his commitment/competence, becomes an old
+packager.
+
+Note that a period of time is needed for a new guy who starts
+working/contributing in a new place to gain people's trust/confidence.
+(trust is gained not given, right?).
+
+(For example you, in MUD, you have a packaging team; say you,
+doktor5000 and tigger-gg are the old packagers (though girls never get
+older than 30 ;)); a new guy wants to contribute, he must will take
+some time to prove his worth / that he can be trusted / competence
+before you give him decision-making privileges. He'll be the new guy
+until a new new guy joins.).
+
+-- 
+Ahmad Samir
+