Re: Arabeyes Charter Proposal

[Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:06:21 -0600
  "Mohammed Elzubeir" <elzubeir at arabeyes dot org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 03:46:47PM -0800, Nadim Shaikli wrote:
> 
> > I agree with what you are saying, but with all due respect I don't see the
> > charter addressing conflict resolution or debate (besides the mention of
> > votes - which in their own right I think will resolve 99.9% of conflicts;
> > unfortunately we barely started using 'em until the volcano erupted).
> 
> In which case, the charter fulfills its conflict resolution purpose.

If the charter is there to address conflict resolution and nothing else,
then I think a simple

  "All decisions that might have conflicting views will be taken a vote on"

will do -- have a feeling its not.  Plus what conflict did we have to begin
with that the charter would have solved and the one-liner above would not
have handled ?

> > It ought to be noted that setting out territories of control, if you will,
> > should not be considered a conflict resolver since what they would amount
> 
> It is not.
> 
> > to is "pulling rank" on someone else.  In other words, "I am the
> > coordinator of such and such and so my word is the ultimate decision
> > maker" - which I believe ought to be avoided --my opinion-- (not that
> > I'm saying that that will happen - I can't foretell the future of
> > course).
> 
> Think of it from a different angle. I will give Isam as an example
> (sorry Isam ;).. Isam has been in effect the l10n coordinator. He has
> knows more about the details of translation than any of us, and has
> developed .. say, an expertise in the area. With that being said, I
> would feel a lot more comfortable if Isam comes out and says, here is my
> plan for this and that, because he has developed the background in the
> subject matter, and so his word is a lot more valuable than that of
> someone who does not have that specific background. 

Let's be 100% honest here.  Isam's situation is different -- I'm utterly
sorry to drag innocence into this -- but i18n and translation is not
something that anyone of us wanted to do and so it was (and unless there
is new blood brought-in) will continue to never be an area of interest (ie.
we'll all be happy enough to have someone DO something in that area, let
alone to argue about anything in it -- its like getting your car oil changed;
not something you look forward to doing yourself, and would really not mind
and even wish that ANYONE else did it for ya).  This by NO MEANS is a
demeaning thing to Isam, if anything its an extremely admirable job and
well worth the effort.

> Again, the "I'm the coordinator of such and such.." you mention above
> has no value if the majority votes against it. So, there is your
> safeguard against that happening.

Don't see the value of it at all.  The coordinator will be there with a
title, he/she can do anything else they like and anyone else can do
the coordinator's job if the other party so decides, if there is conflict
then 'core' takes a vote.  Hmmm... sounds like what's new here is the
addition of titles then.

I'm saying (and I just read an email from Isam noting the same thing) put a
list of all the tasks (forget about categorizing them) publish it world-wide
and let's get the job done (by volunteering for things ourselves and having
others be assigned to us and others as long as the assignee is OK with it).
That to me is more results/work oriented and has nothing to do with
titles/control/credit/prestige/etc/etc.

> >  a. Focus (generate a list of all tasks/projects needed)
>     
> Each person generates that list per their role and responsibility. Then,
> it is reviewed by core so others who may have better/more ideas can
> present them and augment it.
>
> >     ii. divide up the work
> 
> The work is already divided then. No need for this step, with the
> charter ;) Of course, that is not set in stone, if one wishes to indulge
> in something that is not specifically under their roles and
> responsibilities they very well may.. as long as it does not come at the
> cost of fulfilling their role. That's all there is to it.
> 
> > I'm also saying the following - I think Arabeyes hasn't produced enough
> > results and so the "we'll continue working the way we were" ought to be
> > looked into as well not in a negative manner, but with an eye to improve
> > and to make this more results-oriented - that's why I keep talking about
> > results, results, results.  I might have had my fingers in too many bowls
> 
> I agree. IMHO, with this charter, we will not have anymore stops and
> pauses and we can continue to charge forward without any interruptions
> of organization structuring.

How does this charter guarantee results ?  OK, let's not say guarantee, how
does it work towards a fast-paced outcome ?  How does it address mozilla,
the dictionary stuff, the xfree things, etc, etc.

I never thought we have an organization structure to begin with.  And why
would a structure (which ought to mean nothing to us to begin with, right ?)
stop anyone from work ?  If the goal is to get Arabic to linux, what does
it matter if I'm the coordinator of x or y (have I inched closer to the
ultimate goal, then good; otherwise do more and circumvent problems) ?

> I would like to have a vote on this sometime soon, so we can have a core
> meeting scheduled, next week. Everyone whip out your schedule books
> [I know Nadim's schedule of course ;)].

I think I've said all I want to say about this subject - I don't want this
to drag on (one last thing is the veto still there ?).  In any regard,
if/when the vote takes place, mine is a non-surprising NO (against, LAA).

Salam.

 - Nadim


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/