[Mageia-discuss] Mageia governance model draft
ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com
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>
>>> > 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
>> 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
> 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
> 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.
More information about the Mageia-discuss