These are patches for "community care and feeding," contributed for historical reasons and NOT so they can be integrated. The tone is wrong, on rereading, but I hate to just lose the content.
Here's what it is, if you aren't desperate to read the patches themselves:
------------------------
Imagine if you grow a garden and are very ambitious. The first year you overplant and are unwilling to thin out the seedlings. You end up with overcrowded, unhealthy plants.
In practice, communities need to grow at manageable rates, with measurable positive impact. This means that in the formation of a community, you may need to be somewhat discerning in how you accept and promote community members. This also implies that sometimes you need to be willing to demote community members for the sake of how the community operates.
It's important to maintain the community's perspective separately from an individual community member's opinion; a given member may rub someone else the wrong way, or be otherwise difficult to get along with, but still offer valuable contributions. Such a person might find it difficult to be promoted in a community - because a community is, at its heart, a political body - but such a person also shouldn't be demoted or otherwise weeded out (using our gardening analogy) without just cause from the entire community's perspective.
Rely on both contributions and general opinion when deciding to accept or demote community members; if the overall opinion of a promotion is horror and surprise, it's probably not a very good idea. Further, promotion should be based on merit, and not merely opinion (or, as happens often in new projects, desperation for higher user counts).
A careful approach to managing the community establishes a rhythm of growth; careful tending means your community is built of its strongest potential members, which makes for a strong community.
Perhaps it would be good to create a repository for such submissions. They could be linked from the section where they were intended, but include comments that make it clear they are not part of TOSW yet are included for archival purposes / future reference, as well as--and I think this would be the greatest value--a point for ongoing discussion and reflection.
As I read this example, I too find some problems with the tone, but I wonder if they are the same as yours? Discussions around these types of contributions, even if never included, provides an opportunity for greater education and understanding among the community: why aren't the contributions included? what is the issue(s) with tone?
I'll go out on a limb and offer, one issue I have is that I don't like the idea of promotion/demotion. Might the idea of merit and role be better represented as reputation, commitment and/or participation (something else)? Whatever the case, the resulting discussions would help develop a common understanding of language, concepts, values, principles, etc. which in turn would help, not only organize and clearify TOSW, but also develop it by identifying areas then need further development and refinement.
Just a thought, Patrick
On 08/14/2014 08:21 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
These are patches for "community care and feeding," contributed for historical reasons and NOT so they can be integrated. The tone is wrong, on rereading, but I hate to just lose the content.
Here's what it is, if you aren't desperate to read the patches themselves:
Imagine if you grow a garden and are very ambitious. The first year you overplant and are unwilling to thin out the seedlings. You end up with overcrowded, unhealthy plants.
In practice, communities need to grow at manageable rates, with measurable positive impact. This means that in the formation of a community, you may need to be somewhat discerning in how you accept and promote community members. This also implies that sometimes you need to be willing to demote community members for the sake of how the community operates.
It's important to maintain the community's perspective separately from an individual community member's opinion; a given member may rub someone else the wrong way, or be otherwise difficult to get along with, but still offer valuable contributions. Such a person might find it difficult to be promoted in a community - because a community is, at its heart, a political body - but such a person also shouldn't be demoted or otherwise weeded out (using our gardening analogy) without just cause from the entire community's perspective.
Rely on both contributions and general opinion when deciding to accept or demote community members; if the overall opinion of a promotion is horror and surprise, it's probably not a very good idea. Further, promotion should be based on merit, and not merely opinion (or, as happens often in new projects, desperation for higher user counts).
A careful approach to managing the community establishes a rhythm of growth; careful tending means your community is built of its strongest potential members, which makes for a strong community.
tosw mailing list tosw@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/tosw
Patrick, that was what got me, too - I thought it focused too much on the concept of restriction rather than enablement. Care and feeding isn't the same as "weeding." Promotion based on meritocracy is good; promotion based on "we need more bodies to make up the community" is bad. Demotion is always bad, but is sometimes necessary when someone goes off into the weeds themselves, but this text focuses too much on control, like I said.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Masson" masson@opensource.org To: "For discussion about how and why to be a practitioner of the open source way" tosw@lists.fedorahosted.org Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:08:21 PM Subject: Re: Content patch for "care and feeding"
Perhaps it would be good to create a repository for such submissions. They could be linked from the section where they were intended, but include comments that make it clear they are not part of TOSW yet are included for archival purposes / future reference, as well as--and I think this would be the greatest value--a point for ongoing discussion and reflection.
As I read this example, I too find some problems with the tone, but I wonder if they are the same as yours? Discussions around these types of contributions, even if never included, provides an opportunity for greater education and understanding among the community: why aren't the contributions included? what is the issue(s) with tone?
I'll go out on a limb and offer, one issue I have is that I don't like the idea of promotion/demotion. Might the idea of merit and role be better represented as reputation, commitment and/or participation (something else)? Whatever the case, the resulting discussions would help develop a common understanding of language, concepts, values, principles, etc. which in turn would help, not only organize and clearify TOSW, but also develop it by identifying areas then need further development and refinement.
Just a thought, Patrick
On 08/14/2014 08:21 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
These are patches for "community care and feeding," contributed for historical reasons and NOT so they can be integrated. The tone is wrong, on rereading, but I hate to just lose the content.
Here's what it is, if you aren't desperate to read the patches themselves:
------------------------
Imagine if you grow a garden and are very ambitious. The first year you overplant and are unwilling to thin out the seedlings. You end up with overcrowded, unhealthy plants.
In practice, communities need to grow at manageable rates, with measurable positive impact. This means that in the formation of a community, you may need to be somewhat discerning in how you accept and promote community members. This also implies that sometimes you need to be willing to demote community members for the sake of how the community operates.
It's important to maintain the community's perspective separately from an individual community member's opinion; a given member may rub someone else the wrong way, or be otherwise difficult to get along with, but still offer valuable contributions. Such a person might find it difficult to be promoted in a community - because a community is, at its heart, a political body - but such a person also shouldn't be demoted or otherwise weeded out (using our gardening analogy) without just cause from the entire community's perspective.
Rely on both contributions and general opinion when deciding to accept or demote community members; if the overall opinion of a promotion is horror and surprise, it's probably not a very good idea. Further, promotion should be based on merit, and not merely opinion (or, as happens often in new projects, desperation for higher user counts).
A careful approach to managing the community establishes a rhythm of growth; careful tending means your community is built of its strongest potential members, which makes for a strong community.
_______________________________________________ tosw mailing list tosw@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/tosw
I had not realized that the git repo wasn't the authoritative location for TOSW's data - the wiki is, so my patches were misled in the first place. I added new content at https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/Stuff_everyone_knows_and_forgets_anywa... - feel free to slice, dice, criticize, hammer, laud as you like.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Ottinger" jottinge@redhat.com To: "For discussion about how and why to be a practitioner of the open source way" tosw@lists.fedorahosted.org Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:20:57 PM Subject: Re: Content patch for "care and feeding"
Patrick, that was what got me, too - I thought it focused too much on the concept of restriction rather than enablement. Care and feeding isn't the same as "weeding." Promotion based on meritocracy is good; promotion based on "we need more bodies to make up the community" is bad. Demotion is always bad, but is sometimes necessary when someone goes off into the weeds themselves, but this text focuses too much on control, like I said.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Masson" masson@opensource.org To: "For discussion about how and why to be a practitioner of the open source way" tosw@lists.fedorahosted.org Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:08:21 PM Subject: Re: Content patch for "care and feeding"
Perhaps it would be good to create a repository for such submissions. They could be linked from the section where they were intended, but include comments that make it clear they are not part of TOSW yet are included for archival purposes / future reference, as well as--and I think this would be the greatest value--a point for ongoing discussion and reflection.
As I read this example, I too find some problems with the tone, but I wonder if they are the same as yours? Discussions around these types of contributions, even if never included, provides an opportunity for greater education and understanding among the community: why aren't the contributions included? what is the issue(s) with tone?
I'll go out on a limb and offer, one issue I have is that I don't like the idea of promotion/demotion. Might the idea of merit and role be better represented as reputation, commitment and/or participation (something else)? Whatever the case, the resulting discussions would help develop a common understanding of language, concepts, values, principles, etc. which in turn would help, not only organize and clearify TOSW, but also develop it by identifying areas then need further development and refinement.
Just a thought, Patrick
On 08/14/2014 08:21 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
These are patches for "community care and feeding," contributed for historical reasons and NOT so they can be integrated. The tone is wrong, on rereading, but I hate to just lose the content.
Here's what it is, if you aren't desperate to read the patches themselves:
------------------------
Imagine if you grow a garden and are very ambitious. The first year you overplant and are unwilling to thin out the seedlings. You end up with overcrowded, unhealthy plants.
In practice, communities need to grow at manageable rates, with measurable positive impact. This means that in the formation of a community, you may need to be somewhat discerning in how you accept and promote community members. This also implies that sometimes you need to be willing to demote community members for the sake of how the community operates.
It's important to maintain the community's perspective separately from an individual community member's opinion; a given member may rub someone else the wrong way, or be otherwise difficult to get along with, but still offer valuable contributions. Such a person might find it difficult to be promoted in a community - because a community is, at its heart, a political body - but such a person also shouldn't be demoted or otherwise weeded out (using our gardening analogy) without just cause from the entire community's perspective.
Rely on both contributions and general opinion when deciding to accept or demote community members; if the overall opinion of a promotion is horror and surprise, it's probably not a very good idea. Further, promotion should be based on merit, and not merely opinion (or, as happens often in new projects, desperation for higher user counts).
A careful approach to managing the community establishes a rhythm of growth; careful tending means your community is built of its strongest potential members, which makes for a strong community.
_______________________________________________ tosw mailing list tosw@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/tosw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/14/2014 09:20 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Patrick, that was what got me, too - I thought it focused too much on the concept of restriction rather than enablement. Care and feeding isn't the same as "weeding." Promotion based on meritocracy is good; promotion based on "we need more bodies to make up the community" is bad. Demotion is always bad, but is sometimes necessary when someone goes off into the weeds themselves, but this text focuses too much on control, like I said.
Late in replying but just one thought ...
I like your content and am generally fine with the tone. I don't mind being a bit confrontative if it serves to get attention without losing people.
My only concern was with the length of the section -- it borders on being a bit too long. Well, that's the thinking I have had from the beginning, to focus on short-and-punchy rather than long exposition. That might be another discussion point for us all -- do we like/want it to be short pieces (even where it might miss nuances thereof) or should each section flow to its own natural length/need?
- - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
Well, length is a sticky wicket, wot?
I don't think the length of the *section* is all that important - it's more important to be complete than concise to the point of not saying what there is to say. But the other side of that is that the content needs to appear significant; a single sentence might be complete, but lacks the emotional and connotative impact of a paragraph or four (or eight, or...)
The key is to write for the medium and audience; short pages aren't important, but short leading sentences *are*.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Karsten Wade" kwade@redhat.com To: tosw@lists.fedorahosted.org Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:19:32 PM Subject: Re: Content patch for "care and feeding"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/14/2014 09:20 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Patrick, that was what got me, too - I thought it focused too much on the concept of restriction rather than enablement. Care and feeding isn't the same as "weeding." Promotion based on meritocracy is good; promotion based on "we need more bodies to make up the community" is bad. Demotion is always bad, but is sometimes necessary when someone goes off into the weeds themselves, but this text focuses too much on control, like I said.
Late in replying but just one thought ...
I like your content and am generally fine with the tone. I don't mind being a bit confrontative if it serves to get attention without losing people.
My only concern was with the length of the section -- it borders on being a bit too long. Well, that's the thinking I have had from the beginning, to focus on short-and-punchy rather than long exposition. That might be another discussion point for us all -- do we like/want it to be short pieces (even where it might miss nuances thereof) or should each section flow to its own natural length/need?
- - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________ tosw mailing list tosw@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/tosw
On 08/23/2014 06:30 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
The key is to write for the medium and audience; short pages aren't important, but short leading sentences *are*.
Agree. And as we're not confined by publishing costs, we can always link to deeper content to clarify, make an additional example, add more detail, etc.
On 08/14/2014 09:20 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Patrick, that was what got me, too - I thought it focused too much on the concept of restriction rather than enablement. Care and feeding isn't the same as "weeding." Promotion based on meritocracy is good; promotion based on "we need more bodies to make up the community" is bad. Demotion is always bad, but is sometimes necessary when someone goes off into the weeds themselves, but this text focuses too much on control, like I said.
However back to the original post...
I think the discussion was on the tone around hierarchies and inequality within roles and among peers. While I do think there are obviously those who carry more clout, if I recall, the section implied greater deference for those with greater profiles rather than on participation. In addition, the text sounded like decision-making and roles within the project should be based on a few selects' opinions/input, i.e. gatekeepers, with elevated authority, even if they had limited experience/input to do with the issue or the project.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2014 02:22 PM, Patrick Masson wrote:
On 08/23/2014 06:30 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
The key is to write for the medium and audience; short pages aren't important, but short leading sentences *are*.
Agree. And as we're not confined by publishing costs, we can always link to deeper content to clarify, make an additional example, add more detail, etc.
Just wanting to revere the great editor's advice to "be concise."
On 08/14/2014 09:20 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Patrick, that was what got me, too - I thought it focused too much on the concept of restriction rather than enablement. Care and feeding isn't the same as "weeding." Promotion based on meritocracy is good; promotion based on "we need more bodies to make up the community" is bad. Demotion is always bad, but is sometimes necessary when someone goes off into the weeds themselves, but this text focuses too much on control, like I said.
However back to the original post...
I think the discussion was on the tone around hierarchies and inequality within roles and among peers. While I do think there are obviously those who carry more clout, if I recall, the section implied greater deference for those with greater profiles rather than on participation. In addition, the text sounded like decision-making and roles within the project should be based on a few selects' opinions/input, i.e. gatekeepers, with elevated authority, even if they had limited experience/input to do with the issue or the project.
I think that might have been an earlier edit, here's how it looks on the wiki now:
http://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/Stuff_everyone_knows_and_forgets_anyway......
- - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-
Joseph Ottinger -
Karsten Wade -
Patrick Masson