Quote:
MadFish wrote:
Quote:If a select few are responsible, things are going to be done their way, so they can control the risks of being held accountable. This is truly unavoidable.
No, this is the closed team model. It is exactly the opposite of what I mean by open teams.
The leader of an open team would be responsible for coordinating the effort of the wider community for some aspect of xoops. That might mean:
* Maintaining a list of tasks that need doing
* Trying to encourage people to take on particular jobs
* Encouraging people to work together
* Encouraging debate on a common direction
* Encourage community comment and review on technical contributions and suggestions from community members
* Delegating any or all of the above to others!
Anyone interested community member could:
* Take on tasks that need doing
* Propose new tasks or improvements
* Provide input on direction of that aspect of xoops
* Help review technical contributions and suggestions from community members.
This is an open way of working.
This is the way the Core and Management Teams have worked in the past. Exactly like that. I am serious, ALL the above is what you will find, in various degrees of openness and closedness.
This isn't truly open, because there is a scarcity of resources, and these need to be allocated by the coordinator.
This means: deciding 'what needs to be done' based on concepts and ideas that are not the result of a public consent mechanism (as getting this public consent at this strategic level is impossible, ask any organization). This will be based on what the selct few feel 'is best for everyone and the project'. This can be monitored and judged by an accountablility system, but that's only *after* the fact, and therefore counterproductive.
Since there aren't enough resources to do 'all the work' (everything that 'needs to be done'), judgement calls need to be made. This by default means negotiations, because people will have to free their personal resources to make it happen.
Encouraging people definately isn't enough. Especially if that coordinator is to be held accountable for the resource allocation choices made. Then this coordinator will need to be given the resources to hold people to their promises, to make them to something slightly different then they would themselves in the interest of the common goal and plan. And this can never be the case, because this would be in direct conflict with the openness.
There hasn't been clear community census on anything, ever. There have been many many looong wishlists, but only very few people willing to add their resources to the common pool to make them happen. Most of the time permission is asked to actually do something. Why? Isn't true openness about being able to add value? Then do so. There doesn't need to be a leader that will allow you to do anything. If theres a need for coordination, this can be done by the people actually doing it. And then they can be held accountable by their peers for failing to do so. Why make someone else responsible for that, when it *should* be placed at the source?
Like I siad before, if this is about leadership, it should be about everyone becoming a leader and taking responsibility. Not delegating the responsibility to someone else, without giving them the tools to actually do the work. Why make someone responsible for everyone else's failure to think about the consequences and coordinate their efforts?
True openness means everone is a leader and responsible, and accountable by his or her peers. Isn't that what open source is all about? Freedom to express yourself?
Herko
