[openbeos] Re: Openness
- From: Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 03:32:25 +0200
On 2007-05-14 at 20:14:26 [+0200], "Jorge G. Mare (a.k.a. Koki)"
<koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Axel Dörfler wrote:
> > "Jorge G. Mare (a.k.a. Koki)" <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> My entry to the admin group was NOT easy by any measure. As a matter
> >> of
> >> fact, only after I started the sort of heated debate that some are
> >> chastising me for here did I get the attention of the admins. And
> >> some
> >> of the points that I made in the course of that debate even generated
> >> some hostility towards me, so the "we welcome you with open arms as
> >> long
> >> as you want to do hard work" is not necessarily true.
> >>
> >
> > That's not really how I perceived it, though. You were invited pretty
> > quickly, and then the discussion started, because you wanted some clear
> > set of rules to follow. Where you may have seen hostility, I only saw
> > misunderstandings - and certainly not because you were new to the
> > group.
>
> I don't think it was mere perception.
>
> I had to pass the "what is your problem?"...
>
> //www.freelists.org/archives/openbeos/08-2006/msg00174.html
>
> ...and "Jorge, stop pretending Haiku is something it isn't..." ...
>
> //www.freelists.org/archives/openbeos/08-2006/msg00176.html
>
> ...hostility tests, as well as the "we don't need just talk"...
>
> //www.freelists.org/archives/openbeos/08-2006/msg00173.html
>
> ...skepticism test.
You are seriously considering those mails examples of hostility towards you?
[...]
> >> Axel, contrary to what you say, being part of the admin team did not
> >> work for me; it's dynamics hindered my productivity and motivation.
> >> Hopefully it is just me. But it seems that others have also tried and
> >> failed in the past, so it may well be fair to say that something in
> >> Haiku makes it difficult for non-devs to make it to the higher ranks
> >> and
> >> be productive, and that unless something is done, that is most likely
> >> not going to change.
> >>
> >
> > There are no higher ranks within the admin group, it works purely
> > democratic. And I won't start any online discussion on why it hindered
> > your motivation or productivity :-)
>
> Yeah, I know the decision-making is designed to be democratic, and I
> also admit that I don't necessarily advocate democracy, at least not
> blindly. I am a practical person, and I would rather use the best tool
> available for any job at hand over advocating the idealism of democracy.
>
> For the devs who are the absolute and perhaps irreversible majority of
> the admin group, a democratic model may seem like a fair, ideal or
> acceptable mechanism they can work with. But for the only marketeer who
> always had all the odds against him, democracy just meant being less
> efficient and having to bear an excessive burden.
Odds against you? Ouch! The developers on the admin list are uncapable of
reason? Inaccessible for good arguments? The "odds against you" thing is
just as wrong is it can possibly be. Being the only one with marketing
experience on the admin list your marketing related views had by far the
greatest impact -- the decision on the distribution question reflects that
clearly. You have been told so more than once, and I've no idea what caused
the persisting "everyone is against me" perception.
The only thing I'm opposed to is your way of discussing things. In
discussions on the admin list I often saw your arguments be presented as
the undeniable truth of things, while those of others were just plain
wrong. Compromise worked exactly in one direction, and, if not possible,
the discussion would repeat itself forever. This made it a nerve grating
experience to discuss with you. And while I was certainly not happy about a
great marketeer leaving the admin group, for sake of sparing myself those
discussions I (and the same holds for others) was glad you left after all.
It's sad to see those discussions start on this list now. Some good points
have been brought up in this thread, but most of it is a repetition of how
you think the admin group and Haiku Inc. should be structured. If you like
it or not, the admin group is a democratic forum where the decisions
affecting the project are made, Haiku Inc. the corporate body used for
keeping the project's money and other assets, and I don't see that change
anytime soon. I haven't heard any convincing arguments for it, anyway. All
of this has nothing to do with openness, the topic of the thread. Neither
the openness of publishing more of what happens in the admin group, nor the
openness of trying to engage the community (as excellently proven by your
GSoC 2006 vs. 2007 example).
CU, Ingo
Other related posts:
