Re: [Fwd: Re: New supporter]

[Dave Neary <dneary free fr>]

Hi,

Selon Claus Schwarm <c schwarm gmx net>:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 23:38:31 -0400
> Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com> wrote:
> > On 7/5/05, Claus Schwarm <c schwarm gmx net> wrote:
> > > So, althought our own efforts have no direct result for us, did I
> > > understand you correcty: You dare to say we're not really peers?
> > > Don't you think, this is a little bit demotivating?
> >
> > It might be demotivating for some folks, I guess, but I don't think it
> > should be. Supporting and serving and fulfilling the needs of a group
> > who you feel is doing honorable, valuable work (instead of
> > managing/directing/'leading' them) is in and of itself honorable,
> > valuable, important work.
>
> I'm not quite sure whom do you mean by the last 'them'.

Free software developers.

> IMHO, the idea
> of any particular group 'leading' (directing, managing) an other
> particular group is a bad idea for a volunteer project.
> Sharing the same goal(s) should be sufficient for getting things decided
> and done.

It seems like everyone is on the same wavelength.

Oriol  asked if we were the group who set the technical direction for the
project. We're not.  Luis is simply saying that, and saying that groups  like
the marketing team exist because we shaer a  vision with a group of people - we
don't  have the skills to implement that vision,  there are others who do.

Because of the nature  of our community (tightly knit personal relationships,
loose authority hierarchy), the people actually implementing our common  vision
may be considered to have an opinion  which  is worth more than others who
don't; that is  to say, if I suggest a change to metacity, and Havoc disagrees
with my proposition, then metacity stays the way it is.

However, we are all part of a community where esteem is earned. If, through
frequent contribution, someone gains esteem in the greater community, then
their opinions and analyses suddenly gain more weight in  their areas of
expertise,regardless  of whether it is them who  does the actual implementation
afterwards or not. Good examples of this would be the  work of  Calum Benson or
Bill Hanneman in Sun,  Seth  Nickell and Brian Clarke in Redhat, Tuomas, jimmac
 and Anna Dirks in  Novell  (and Luis in  the bugsquad). These are people who
have enngaged the  community, providinng valuable feedback and support,  for
months,  without ever demanding,  cajoling or otherwise feeling like  they had
some kind of right to get someone  to  do something they  wanted to be done.

> To make a long text short: We need a better answer to the 'Who's
> responsible for product decisions?' question.

The long-term  direction  of  the  project is dictated by impromptu woprkinng 
groups, people with standing in the commuity who get togethertowork on greater
goals. We were  missing long-term goals  for  a while, that's what NNat's talk 
was about at last year's GUADEC, andwhat  Seth's talk was abour  this  year. And
wehave had a lotof  discussion (Jeff Waugh's presentation on 10x10, working
towards a solution  ofthe language issue,  defining what it means to be part 
of GNOME, annd so on).

That work is ongoing, and if there are  very obvious vacuums, people should be
pointing them out, taking initiative to presennt specsc, plans, working on
creating groups of people with the crcedibility to address those  issues. God
loves a trier,as my mother says.

Cheers,
Dave.

--
Dave Neary
Lyon, France