On 9/7/12 12:30 PM, Ian Lynch wrote: > On 7 September 2012 10:27, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/7/12 10:28 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: >>> There is some difference between the way ASF sees "community" compared >>> to the former structures of the OOo community. ASF sees much of what >>> the old OOo called the community as the "ecosystem". >> >> It is definitely an important aspect and I think everybody is invited to >> take responsibility to reach out to the broader eco-systems and help to >> increase it >> >> As a specific >>> proposal I think we need at least one ppmc/pmc member with the role of >>> linking to wider community or ecosystem projects and I'd nominate >>> Louis for that role because he has the most experience. I'm willing to >>> assist if he accepts that role and thinks I could be useful. It could >>> be that additional roles develop in marketing, distribution etc within >>> the pmc but that does not have to be decided at this stage. Such roles >>> could be developed outside ASF but with a formal link to the pmc to >>> support communications. >> >> I would not bind it to a specific person or to a role. Anybody can do >> anything here and anybody is encouraged to simply start doing things. > > Nothing stops anyone doing community support, it but Rob was saying > some things were being left because I guess it was no-one's specific > responsibility and he was left to take action.
maybe or it was simply because the active community members would have been busy with other things, I don't know. To me a pMc has a > management role. In a large project like AOO management has to have > some sort of organisation. While a small project can get by with > informal task based culture, the larger the organisation the less well > this works. ASF itself is divided into different projects for that > reason. We gave the press liaison role to Don IIRC. We also have the > precedent of the previously successful OOo structure. That worked well > with a lot of the community tasks then not distracting the engineering > effort. gave we this role to Don or did he simply took this task and expressed responsibility for it. I think this is a difference. If you or Louis will take responsibiltiy for this task just do it. Don't wait! We have this already in other areas where people started to take responsibility for specific tasks. My suggestion is that we let it evolve and don't start with a corset of roles. I belief that persons will grow in such "roles" (if you prefer this term) by taking ownership and responsibility for it. > > This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, > Anybody, and Nobody. > > There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that > Somebody would do it. > > Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. > > Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job. > > Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that > Everybody wouldn't do it. > > It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what > Anybody could have done I like this and it can help us to understand that we should not wait that others do the work for us. Juergen > >> It >> is natural that people will focus on the areas where they think they can >> do most and where they are best. That's perfect and will definitely help >> us. But I think it is important that newcomers don't get the impression >> that the so called "roles" are already settled by some other persons and >> that there is no place or demand for further resources or help. > > The role suggested is simply to coordinate community activities, it is > a management role not an executive role. It is to ensure that someone > coming into the community/ecosystem can have the resource they are > prepared to commit used to the maximum. There is not much resource so > maximising the efficiency and effectiveness of its use is important. > >> Everybody is welcome and encouraged to start working on things that are >> important for them and of course for the project. If there is overlap >> with the work of others I expect that these community members take >> action and start collaboration on these thinks. And what seems to be >> more important is that the "older" members help newcomers to find their >> way and invite them to join for example temporary or longer existing >> working groups for specific work items. >> >> Building work groups to work on specific tasks is totally ok but these >> work groups are always open for others to join and to extend the power >> and effectiveness of such a group. > > I don't think that the proposal prevents that in any way. > >> If somebody joins and draw big pictures, spread visions but never let >> follow concrete actions it is likely that she/he will stay alone and >> will probably disappear silently over time. > > Why would anyone prevent them from concrete actions? There is no > suggestion in the proposal to give anyone particular power or > authority to veto actions. > >> New ideas and visions are >> always welcome and the minimal action is to put enough energy in it to >> convince others to share the vision, idea and start collaborative work >> to drive it forward. > > Management does not exclude that possibility. Good management will > promote it, bad management will kill it. The key is not to have no > management but to have effective management that makes it more likely > and utilises the available resources better. Support people in working > to their strengths. > >> This is at least my personal opinion and I am trying to follow these >> principles. But nobody is perfect ;-) >> >> Juergen >>
