[Mageia-discuss] Mageia governance model draft

[Romain d'Alverny]

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 17:48, Tux99 <tux99-mga at uridium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
>> Teams are made of at least two sub-groups (from a credentials point of view):
>>  * "Apprentices" (people being mentored into the team - someone
>> suggested "petit scarabée" as a label but...)
>>  * and "Masters".
>>
> [...]
>
> Romain, that sound like a very rigid regimented structure that I fear
> will cause "i'm better than you" kind of feelings, etc.

I understand it could be felt/seen like that, but that's not at all
the point and it shouldn't be understood like that. I don't think you
can find a role name, anyway, that wouldn't be used as vanity title -
vanity is not in the title, it's in the holder.

> I don't see the point in strictly classifying people in either masters
> or slaves (sorry, freudian slip, i meant apprentices) because skill
> levels are a lot more varied and fluid than just two classes.

It's not about people skills per se, but about their introduction
within the team and its processes. You wouldn't give a full write
access to some code repository without knowing enough about
committer's capability and code guide understanding? It's not about
excluding, it's about proper inclusion (being mentored by someone
experienced in the team, knowing how the whole thing works, and
getting in).

That doesn't prevent a new apprentice to demonstrate she already
masters the whole thing and then, great.

> Of course there will be mentors and mentored but there is no need to
> create a rigid two class structure with priviledges for the master
> class.

It's rigid (who votes, who doesn't / who has write/production commit,
who doesn't) in that it could be needed in last resort or for
practical purpose at this time. And that a team leader, for instance,
wouldn't be elected if not already recognized by her peer team members
(hence, having done it through the mentoring program).

But that wouldn't prevent the whole team to have a larger consensus
making culture, if it can.

Does that answer you?

Cheers,

Romain