From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- .../20100921/6a8348a2/attachment-0001.html | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++ .../attachments/20100921/6a8348a2/attachment.html | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 78 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20100921/6a8348a2/attachment-0001.html create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20100921/6a8348a2/attachment.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20100921/6a8348a2') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20100921/6a8348a2/attachment-0001.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20100921/6a8348a2/attachment-0001.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c5a77e837 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20100921/6a8348a2/attachment-0001.html @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +

2010/9/21 Tux99 <tux99-mga@uridium.org>
+
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, vfmBOFH wrote:
+>
+> Similar to the (failed) mandriva assembly, huh?
+>
+> I think it can be a good scheme. And comes with some "extras" like localized
+> communities can "elect" their representative on the future associaton, and
+> turns the "central hub" in a open discuss for them. If this scheme sucess,
+> transparency and openess of the representative's discursons are guaranteed.
+
+
+
Since vfmBOFH mentions the failed mandriva assembly, I'd like to suggest
+to please keep the organisational structure as flat as possible.
+
+On the internet where everyone has equal possibilities to be informed
+and partecipate we don't need multi-level hierarchical structures with
+so called local community representatives that have special rights or
+influence.
+
+As we just saw during the first days of Mageia, the opinion of some
+local community representatives don't necessarily match at all with the
+opinions of the members of their community.
+
+So personally I don't see any point in local community representatives
+as decision makers. If anything they should make sure that their
+communities are informaed by arranging translations of relevant
+information and manage their local forums, events etc.
+
+Any voting on global Mageia issues should be open to everyone, there
+should be no delegations or representations as that's not necessary on
+the internet.
+

+_______________________________________________
+Mageia-discuss mailing list
+Mageia-discuss@mageia.org
+https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-discuss
+

I did not say that representatives are decison makers. As its position indicates, they "represent" their respective communities. Their vote (or decision) *must* be their communities one.
+
On the other hand, if every aspect of the distro should be voted on by each and every one of its users, the process of implementing a change would be too slow for what we are accustomed. I do not see the community voting en masse (and agreeing!) On every aspect of the distro.
+
The "central hub" should be seen as a "parliament", where users (who have previously elected their representatives) are represented.

diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20100921/6a8348a2/attachment.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20100921/6a8348a2/attachment.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c5a77e837 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20100921/6a8348a2/attachment.html @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +

2010/9/21 Tux99 <tux99-mga@uridium.org>
+
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, vfmBOFH wrote:
+>
+> Similar to the (failed) mandriva assembly, huh?
+>
+> I think it can be a good scheme. And comes with some "extras" like localized
+> communities can "elect" their representative on the future associaton, and
+> turns the "central hub" in a open discuss for them. If this scheme sucess,
+> transparency and openess of the representative's discursons are guaranteed.
+
+
+
Since vfmBOFH mentions the failed mandriva assembly, I'd like to suggest
+to please keep the organisational structure as flat as possible.
+
+On the internet where everyone has equal possibilities to be informed
+and partecipate we don't need multi-level hierarchical structures with
+so called local community representatives that have special rights or
+influence.
+
+As we just saw during the first days of Mageia, the opinion of some
+local community representatives don't necessarily match at all with the
+opinions of the members of their community.
+
+So personally I don't see any point in local community representatives
+as decision makers. If anything they should make sure that their
+communities are informaed by arranging translations of relevant
+information and manage their local forums, events etc.
+
+Any voting on global Mageia issues should be open to everyone, there
+should be no delegations or representations as that's not necessary on
+the internet.
+

+_______________________________________________
+Mageia-discuss mailing list
+Mageia-discuss@mageia.org
+https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-discuss
+

I did not say that representatives are decison makers. As its position indicates, they "represent" their respective communities. Their vote (or decision) *must* be their communities one.
+
On the other hand, if every aspect of the distro should be voted on by each and every one of its users, the process of implementing a change would be too slow for what we are accustomed. I do not see the community voting en masse (and agreeing!) On every aspect of the distro.
+
The "central hub" should be seen as a "parliament", where users (who have previously elected their representatives) are represented.

-- cgit v1.2.1