On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 00:11, Peter Kupfer wrote: > Ian Lynch wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 06:01, Jacqueline McNally wrote: > > > > > >>>Hopefully we can learn to live together both of you, and all volunteers > >>>can be useful and helpful to OOo. If you don't like something, fix it. > >>>OOo is a doocracy. > >> > >>My initial post to the MP list was with the subject "do-ocracy", see: > >>http://marketing.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=16702 > > > > > [snip] > > > > > The difficulty for OpenOffice.org is that its a big project with roles > > that bestow power and influence on the incumbents. It is in fact a role > > culture and we need to recognise that. There are elements of task > > culture about it too, and it is more democratic than a corporate would > > be and certainly less coersive. But its a bit of a strange mixture so > > perhaps understanding the nature of the organisation is important. I > > don't think just declaring ourselves a do-ocracy or anythng else means > > that we are one. Establishing cooperative psychological contracts is the > > only way to manage a project like OOo. Coersion won't work because the > > coersed will just go elsewhere or do something else. > > > > That was very informative, and I agree to a point, but doesn't us being > volunteers change the whole picture of business models.
Yes, that is what I was trying to say though perhaps a bit clumsily. The voluneer nature means that the normal elements of coersion (carrer path, salary, pension etc) that corporates exert are absent. BUt there is peer pressure and that can't be negelected, there is Sun who wield quite a lot of power because of their financial position. I'm not saying anythng dogmatically or specifically, I just think understandiong OpenOffice.org as an organisation should help us to work more productivey together. IN general understanding produces enlightenment and enlightenment usually leads to better outcomes. Of course there are exceptions. But I'm the Education Lead so part of my role is to promote education in all its forms. > I a corporation > if someone else makes me upset, I have to keep working with them. Absolutely, but in OOo if someone upsets you , you still have the emotional and psychological contract with the project. The crux is whether the upset is enought to break that contract. > In OOo world, if I get upset, I can just quit helping and just use OOo. > Also, in OOo world, I can do whatever I want and I don't need > permission. This is not actually true. You could not, for example, unilaterally change the fron page on the web site, you could not unilaterally write a patch ans be sure it would be accepted. I agree that you have a lot more freedom to innovate than in a corporate situation but you are not free to do absolutely anything you want. Hence there are some frustrations for some people from time to time. > I can make my own little OOo world, make my own little OOo > documentation and no one can stop me. After I have done this (this is > NOT a dig at GRS since the documentation project is an official project, > it is just a useful example) I can call myself the OOo documentation > Director or something like this. You can, but really you are forking an aspect of the project. This is a bit of a double edged sword. It might be an advantage because it brings an improvement without all the overhead of persuading everyone else its a good idea. It might be bad because it fragments the effort. > I think the best example of perhaps how OOo is different is how Daniel > created the OOoAuthors group. He say a need and he made it. This I guess > is a task culture, but we also have a role culture at the same time (as > I think you said.) However, everyone could just quit at once at their > would be no culture. :-) Well yes, but that is not too likely with 30,000 list subscribers. A more likely scenario would be that groups with a micropolitical interest break away and do their own thing. The effect on the overall project of this could be good or bad, each situation would have to be judeged on its own merit based on the outcome of such an event. However, the management styles of project leads certianly has to be adapted to take into account these possibilities. What I'm saying is that management is different for such a situation. Not necessarily easier, more difficult, just different with a different skills set. > I have lost my train of thought. I guess a cooperative psychological > contract would be good, but that seems like it would be difficult to > establish over the net. Or, maybe it is easier. I think that is a real issue. On the plus side its far easier to establish a cooperative psychological contract when we all have common interests and goals. That is a real ace in the hole for OOo because we are all emotionally devoted to the course to a much grater extent than most people working in a corporate to pay their mortgage and feed their families. OTOH, we loose a lot by not meeting personally. I think those of us who have eg in San Diego or Berlin can testify that there really is no substitute for human contact. That is why I have travelled round the world in February re: INGOTs and I'm going back to Australia in April and all over Europe in between. I can't afford the time but really I can't afford not to do it if I want INGOTs to be successful. I have to invest in people and relationships because that is what will provide a strong worldwide confidence and bond to make it work. > The only point I was trying to make, is that in many ways, the more you > do in OOo world, the power/influence you have. If GRS wrote > documentation, then GRS is the documentation co-lead. If Daniel makes up > OOoAuthors, he is the lead for that. If I don't like the file name in > the title bar, I can go into the code and change it and post a patch > that anyone else can download. I hope I have shown that I really agree with you. These aspects are what make FLOSS a killer business. However, I think we need to learn and develop greater understanding of ourselves, the organisation and the inter-relationships if we are to maximise our progress. Its a knowledge economy and know thyself is a great starting point. > Having said all that, I guess my real question/comment is does the fact > that we are volunteers change the cultures you listed? I don't think it changes the cultural classifications. I think it changes the balance of how we as individuals and groups operate in the organisation and therefore the balance of the application of cultural types in the community. (That sounds crap! Sorry, I'll have to think of a better way of communicating the idea.) -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd
