[Mageia-discuss] Mageia governance model draft

[Ahmad Samir]

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