On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 17:12:37 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Also I don't think volunteer effort can't be organized. It is
a matter
of people identifying themselves as part of well-defined
organization as
opposed to independent crowd of collaborators.
I think we could organize ourselves better, too. It's all a
matter of finding the right angle. But I think management is
not what we need. We need better leadership. Big difference.
Probably. But one can't simply create leadership, this is
something that comes naturally. Management is easier.
It is a common wisdom
that if no one feels directly responsible for an issue, no one
will ever
pay attention to it.
Yah, on the trite side even I'd opine :o). I said this several
times now, and I'll say it again: I have asked SEVERAL TIMES
people INDIVIDUALLY to do things that are HIGH IMPACT for the D
language instead of something else that was more important to
them, to no avail.
Of course, because you can't ask people to fulfill duties they
have not volunteered to fulfill. This is exactly what I am
speaking about - amount of people actually working on the
language is actually very small despite high amount of
contribution. Most people just do stuff they need or are
interested in and can't be obliged to do anything else.
Volunteering to do stuff you don't really want is completely
different thing :) And it needs to be encouraged by something
more precious than tiny bounties. For example, being able to
influence language-changing decisions is much more seductive
reward.
Of course, it would be learned helplessness to draw sweeping
conclusions from the experience so far.
Do you need any specific proposals?
Suggestions for doing things better are gladly considered.
As I have mentioned on some occasions, I was very impressed by
both simplicity and efficiency of Arch Linux "Trusted User"
organization after studying it "from inside". It is group of
people that are not directly affiliated with Arch developers but
have volunteered to take care/responsibility about parts of
ecosystem. They also have power to make decisions regarding that
ecosystem by formal voting procedure (with strict quorum and
success % defined). Addition of new trusted users requires
sponsorship from one of existing TU's and is approved by the very
same voting procedure. Usually new TU's state clearly what parts
of the ecosystem they want to be responsible for during initial
application and this is often taken into consideration by voters.
I think D community can take some inspiration from such approach.
It will allow to make decisions on more controversial topics and
speed up process in general by removing bottleneck of your +
Walter decision (assuming you still have veto votes in case stuff
goes really bad). Also it gives clear overview of who is supposed
to be responsible for what and feeling of making the difference
for those who take part in it.
