Re: Arabeyes Charter Proposal

[Mohammed Elzubeir <elzubeir at arabeyes dot org>]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 04:56:53PM -0800, Nadim Shaikli wrote:
> 
>    With Chahine's "is only between one person and the coordinator" comment
>    above leads me to the following statement - all conflicts are between one
>    person and someone else (or a group); so what's being said here ?  Are
>    votes only to be taken on group conflicts ? what about a single person
>    who's in disagreement - the so-called coordinator decides ?

If it's only one person who is in disagreement, of course. Even if there
was a vote, that would be the case anyway.. where is the confusion?

> 2. I'm utterly confused.  Your reply above doesn't refute the paragraph
>    ending with "Hmmm..." - how does structure and hierarchy resolve conflicts
>    naturally when its been implied that authority and position will not be an
>    issue in settling any points ?
> 
> As for the need for titles - I can only say that its a truly sad idea!
> And in my opinion a major factor into all these problems/issues.

You are completely missing the point and keep saying titles/names.. this
is about accountability. It's about "RESPONSIBILITY".. which part of
that is confusing?

> Clarification - the votes I was after are only for things "that might
> have conflicting views" (as is noted above) and not for any "minor issues"
> (we survived 6 months with MAJOR progress without so much as a hiss, mind
> you and there were plenty of disagreements and give-n-take).

And based on what? What's major and what's minor? Who decides? Such
things are minimized by the charter. Example, is when I made the
decision to translate "KDE" one way, and Isam didn't appreciate that,
prior consultation. Is that major? I still don't think it was, but I can
understand why it wasn't appreciated.

If you want me to give examples of every case of discontent or
disagreement that has occurred and how this charter would have
potentially prevented I will, but I'm pretty sure it will be a waste of
time, since it won't change your mind -- and you have voted already
anyway (I have no incentive to try to persuade one way or the other). 

> 
> Maybe in a different thread, I could be educated onto why (in detail and
> in bruising truth) you think "it didn't" work (as is noted above).

Let me add to what Chahine has said, and that about structure. Maybe you
never wanted structure, but if you are serious about a project, and not
just a "let's have fun", then a structure is not only important but
mandatory. And like Chahine said, point me to a project that has no
structure. 

If you are unhappy with your proposed role and responsibilities then
that is another issue. I am assuming that it was picked because of the
tremendous effort you have put in campaigning for the project, and the
PR work you have done. 

And by the way, l10n is not limited to translation work. Things like the
xkb and as such are also l10n. If it were limited to translation it
would have been called "Translation Coordinator". 

Isam, it's time for your vote. Please think very carefully before you
make a choice, because this will have a tremendous impact on the way
Arabeyes will function from here on. 

I vote yes.

Later
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Mohammed Elzubeir    | Visit us at:                 |
|                      |  http://www.arabeyes.org/    |
| Arabeyes Project     | Homepage:                    |
| Unix the 'right' way |  http://fakkir.net/~elzubeir/|
-------------------------------------------------------