Re: [libreoffice-website] Meritocracy, roles, etc. (was: Decision about CMS)

Le 2010-10-22 21:14, Ivan M. a écrit :
> Hi Marc, all,
>
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Marc Paré<marc@marcpare.com>  wrote:
> > Le 2010-10-22 16:34, Bernhard Dippold a écrit :
> > > I don't know if we need such formal decisions on groups and teams.
> > > I think what we had at the OOo lists worked quite well: People known for
> > > their amount of active contribution have been heard by the majority of
> > > list members,
> >
> > So, in a sense you did have a formal Website membership set up that only
> > seasoned members knew about, but to a new person, that membership was
> > invisible.
>
> I don't think that's a fair way of describing it - probably because
> activity on the OOo website list has never been as active as this list
> (in my experience). It's not hard to figure things out in a small but
> active community... but I'm not sure that applies to LibreOffice.
>
> In a meritocracy, which TDF wants to be [1], people earn respect
> through participation, engagement and contribution. After following
> the list for a short period of time, it should not be difficult for a
> newcomer to get a sense of who does what and how they go about doing
> what they do. When newcomers gain that institutional knowledge, they
> join in, suggest improvements, make contributions and gain some
> standing in the community.
>
> That's the standard meritocratic narrative, and it's been subject to
> criticism [2] because of underlying assumptions around what
> constitutes merit. Different people contribute in different ways, and
> we should value their contributions, whatever they may be. Achieving
> an inclusive and diverse meritocracy might require a different
> approach with larger projects though.
>
> In contrast to the OOo website list, LibreOffice has quite a large
> number of potential contributors. This may make it more difficult to
> gain that institutional knowledge in an efficient manner. I think it's
> in everybody's best interest to facilitate this.

Absolutely and completely agreed ... if this were possible in this 
setting. I did not participate in the OOo and come to the LibO community 
with a very naïve understanding of its historical background. Having 
said this, there are obvious problems with meritocracy when the 
membership makes it so that the "meriting" members have been masqued by 
the sheer number of participants. The meritocracy can still be upheld if 
the membership make the simple effort of identifying the meritorious 
members (read influential) by some sort of manner. The most logical and 
most simple method in this case would be the categorization of the 
meritorious group and the non-meritorious group. In the case of the 
choice of the CMS, the listing of the meritorious groups in a Website 
CMS membership list would clearly identify this group and no need to 
identify the other members. Then a call to vote would certainly make sense.

> > To me, it would seem clearer to members if the TDF/LibO Website
> > Team membership list was visible and then the new member would clearly know
> > who spoke with authority, this would provide more clarity. If that new
> > member or any member for that matter really wanted to take part in a more
> > tangible way, she/he would join. It would still not stop the rest of the
> > community from having our say. We would then have no problem leaving the
> > final decision to the TDF/LibO Website Team membership.
>
> It might help to codify contributions in some way, such as formalising
> decision-making through i-Team-like structures where a number of
> members are responsible for making decisions relating to a particular
> task or project while also engaging with the community for
> consultation, feedback, etc.
>
> Wiki pages listing what people have done, what they're working on,
> etc. could help newcomers discover who to contact if they want to work
> on something with someone, rather than simply subscribing to the list
> and trying to figure it all out.

This would still be too confusing for a new comer. For example, I have 
just created my Wiki and would challenge you to find it in a decent 
amount of time. If you were then asked to research the rest of the team 
in this way, then, as a member with no meritorious designation, you 
would most likely not join in but move on to a more structure project.
Clarity should be set in a very simple and logic manner. If a project is 
announced, then a Wiki should be created with a list of members and a 
call for the community to discuss with the notion that the project 
membership will the make any final decisions when the community at large 
has discussed it. I believe this is a very understandable notion of 
structure for all.

> There are things we can do to make it easier for newcomers to
> strengthen (and preserve) the meritocratic nature of the project. It's
> about having opportunities open for others to come and contribute to,
> but also about recognising the contributions that others have already
> made.
>
> >   so their opinion was more important than comments from
> > > "newbies".
> >
> > Hmmm ... Not sure if I would agree with this. I am a "newbie" so am I to
> > understand that my help and discussion on this thread is considered less
> > than yours or others. I have never heard of you and don't even know if you
> > speak with authority and there is nowhere to read if you are new or a
> > seasoned member. If I am asked to contribute and then told that my vote is
> > less in the end, then why would I contribute at all? If I knew of a list of
> > registered members of the TTDF/LibO Website Team, then I would know that my
> > opinion will be heard but that the core Website team will decide. Wouldn't
> > that work better?
>
> I'm not sure about what exactly 'registered members' would constitute,
> but I agree with the gist of this.
>
> > > And in the most cases discussions end with some kind of agreement on the
> > > best way to go.
> >
> > If they are decided as you describe, well maybe, we, as a group, should try
> > to rethink it. There should be more clarity for the whole of the membership.
> > I am not sure if you can have a cooperative group of people when you work
> > this way.
>
> The larger groups become, the greater the opportunity for conflicting
> views. A huge amount of contention can be created around a single
> issue in a relatively short period of time without much helpful
> progress: the document icons in OOo 3.2.1 are an example I remember
> very well, and the decision regarding the CMS has, at times, shown
> that here. If clarity could help channel all that energy into more
> productive means (as opposed to generating a mass of heated and
> repetitive emails), then we should by all means strive for it.

Yes, and all that could be avoided by the simple act of a membership 
listing.

Cheers

Marc

> Regards,
> Ivan.
>
> ------
>
> [1] http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/
> [2] http://www.geekfeminism.org/2010/10/09/meritocracy-might-want-to-re-think-how-you-define-merit/



--
E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted