[Mageia-discuss] Mageia governance model draft

Wed Oct 6 09:20:14 CEST 2010

On 6 October 2010 09:19, Ahmad Samir <ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com> wrote:
+> 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
+>
+
+P.S. I forgot to say I like the term "padawans" too.
+
+-- 
+Ahmad Samir
+