quoting Marco
ref #103Quote:
the add-ons subsite was quite finished at mid january, but some, too perfecionnists, dreamed about a better one that needed some module dev for that.
@Marco, with the respect I have you, I must say I disagree that addons was ever close to be finished in that time, the site had the information unorganized, texts missing, texts that needed reviewing and texts to be added, it had no homepage and it had to be given a structure. But let's not argue about this now ok. We need to start working as a team and not be individualistic.
@Carnuke, you are blaming the core developers because the FAQ or the News or the Docs or the Forum don't look right?
quoting Carnuke
ref #105Quote:
Gradually the developers see that there is a need for documentation, Organisation, communication of updates, news, file downloads, etc, etc. In effect all this extra stuff is nothing to do with the codebase or the concept; it's the needs of the greater community...
They continue with coding and developing the project and try their danrdest to throw out some help files, run a forum, make archives available and generally run the whole show...
Soon the cries of documentation, Organisation, communication and forum participation have angry overtones of disappointment from the community. Great software, but where is our support? we need you, we want you, you have an obligation to us.
Doesn't seem like it to me, the problem is that hardly anyone wants to take the time to think, and plan something and propose a working objective of value to the community.
If we think in XOOPS as of countries in a globe, and we see it as 3 countries; Core (Australia), Foundation (Europe), Community (NorthAmerica). What's the method Australia or Europe use to work as a society have to do with North America?
Community needs teams? Then let the community build them on their own.
So where is this discussion leading to ? Why isn't any proposing a work plan for the community?
I repeat for the 3rd time same thing I have been posting in other posts I've done in this same thread:
As I see it, looking at the community site, it's up to the people how they want it to be. Team work, coordination and planning the solution. The community is responsible of making it possible and is responsible of the results, since it seems to me that when something goes wrong the wrong person is being blamed.
and I agree with Herko's approach:
ref #97Quote:
That is why I propose a self-organising community. Let the core devs deal with code development and decision making methods common in open source development. Let the Foundation take care of corporate communications and product promotion, which ever way the project evolves. And let the support community organise itself, without an all-overseeing body of people responsible.
And seems you all have identified problem by now, so no need to ramble on about the same another 20 pages, cause nothing will ever change if we don't start
working to make the change possible and fill in the gaps.
Herko's view of what a leadership is close to how I think it could work well, when/if the team working groups are ever formed.
ref #101Quote:
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?
A meritocratic team work formation could be an appropiate next step.
