Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Is that ...
My opinion, based on the observed fact that without such
leadership and direction, our community is not working and
there does not seem to be any plan in place to fix it.
> The design of the community groups is that they consist of
> overlapping sets of individuals working on a set of tasks
> (projects) within the scope of each CG.
We seem to have failed on this. (N.B., I agree with you)
Nothing in the structure, website or tools supports this view.
The focus is entirely on Community Leaders (website), Contributers
and Core Contributers (poll.OS.o, Constitution, OGB elections)
and the ways that those people interact (forums, mailing lists
and web pages).
None of the Communities I looked at (I didn't look at them all...)
has a list of its responsibilities. The website doesn't track
them. The OGB does not have a list of approved charters (other
than the /dev/random of its mail logs). Many Communities have
self-written overviews, introductions or even lists of goals,
but being a "container of responsibility" implies more to me.
It cries out for things like problem statements, scope, goals,
completion criteria and the like.
I agree that this is important - it just isn't what we are doing.
> What they need is individual vision (generated bottom-up) and
> the ability to peacefully coalesce and resolve any conflicts
> in individual vision while making progress toward shared goals.
Where do those shared goals come from? IMO, wherever they come
from and however they get there, they are that vision I attributed
to the OGB. Whether the OGB invents them with 100% original
thinking, or if they simply reflect the will of the larger
community, we need a unifying set of shared goals.
Without these shared goals, at best we have glorified brownian
motion; at worst we have counterproductive bickering and chaos.
> If anyone disagrees with how a CG is progressing, they are
> fully capable of joining that CG and working towards their own
> view of better progress within that CG's scope.
#include "my.thoughts.exactly.h"
> The OGB are shepherds. Your job is to keep the flock alive.
> ...
> It is about caring for the long-term needs
First those long term needs need to be identified - I called
it a roadmap, but your perspective is just as valid.
A flock of sheep exists for more than sustaining the flock.
They produce milk, wool and stew, as well as more sheep. What
is it that OS.o exists for?
I'd be happy with an initial roadmap of "get the community
aligned and functioning within the structure found in the
new constitution". We can ponder additional long term
needs (like distros...) once we get our own house in order.
-John
