Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>]

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:39:47PM +1100, Hamish Greig wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:56, Unet wrote:
> > Moreover, annoucing a new project lead without
> > _any_ concertation at all is not really conceivable, and it is, in my
> > point of view, not acceptable at all. AFAIK we're not in Haiti. We all
> > stated that we believed in a democratic process, and it is by this
> > process that you have been chosen for project lead, a task you
> > brilliantly performed, _almost_ to its conclusion.
> >
> 
> I agree. 
> I have known of this decision for a while but in light of recent problems 
> with 
> project communications I now think all team leaders should be 
> democratically 
> chosen/voted. It is not enough just to want to do a job, you must also 
> agree 
> to discuss problems with other people, other team leads and respect the 
> will 
> and desires of the community. 
> Nominations, nominees being seconded and actual voting is called for if 
> this 
> project hopes to progress in accordance with the wills and desires of its 
> developers and users. 
> Finally, an open position doesn't need to be filled unless the right 
> candidate 
> applies, putting people into a role they are ill-equipped to handle will 
> cause more problems than solutions and should be avoided.

Agreed. The last time we chose a project lead it was done by voting, and
it should stay like that.
Same goes for team leads, though i'm not sure whether only the team
should vote or all developers.

> > > In the last few months there has been some decisions made behind the
> > > scenes which involved the Team Leads and myself to appoint a 
> > > replacement.
> > > The replacement has been informed, has agreed and is ready to take
> > > charge.
> >
> > Again, this is not acceptable. Decisions as important as this one should
> > be made public, not 6 days before the deadline, and most certainly not
> > with a "ready-made" solution. I do not want to be in a situation where
> > people are coopted by few (call that an oligarchy). This has nothing to
> > do with the persons involved, but rather in the concept of it. If we are
> > trying "not to hide problems" (as stated in our social contract, but for
> > technical problems), let's try not to hide solutions :)
> >
> 
> The person currently slated for the project lead position has my support, 
> but  
> in spite of this, I agree it is contrary to our social contract to have it 
> decided by the outgoing lead and his cronies. 
> I agree with Kevin and would like to formalise my support with a democrat  
> method.
> I think for the same reasons stated (by Kevin and me both here and 
> previously) 
> that team leads should also be democratically installed. Whether I will 
> continue to use SMGL depends on whether team leads will allow discussion of 
> problems in their chosen product.
> I see no reason to continue contributing the 20-30 hours a week I have 
> contributed for the last year if my work in the grimoire and ISO is 
> completely dependant on a sorcery that users or developers cannot discuss 
> objectively with it's team members,  and that doesn't respect the 
> developers 
> that use it's product.
> I wish it were just a personality conflict, but recent events and emails 
> ( both private and public) show it is more fundamental than that.
> 
> > What I really think is that this meeting should be the moment when we
> > will have to _vote_ for someone to take the project lead. I do not care
> > about whether the issue of the vote will give the same result as your
> > arrangements - as stated above, this is not the point. I will feel (and
> > hopefully some people too) much more at ease after a vote than a
> > designation.
> 
> I think a vote will show support for the currently nominated person, but it 
> still needs doing. It is the right way to move forward out of the current 
> problems.
> Hamish
> 
> ps I say "team" because one bad apple can spoil the whole barrel.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFARICW8fSufZR6424RAmtHAJ9uelqqw59khbHAM+j15J11FwpH3ACfTlK9
> 30p1LZgjPRnZnEsAe/2YdaQ=
> =uxig
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> 

-- 
Arwed v. Merkatz                               Sourcemage GNU/Linux developer
                                                    http://www.sourcemage.org