Re: Arabeyes Charter Proposal

["Chahine M. Hamila" <mch at chaham dot com>]

Nadim Shaikli a *crit :

> > As I told you, you can put the names you want. If you want no name, then you
> > can
> > call the ones who take care of L10N for example,
> > "The-one-who-supervises-most-localization-work-in-arabeyes". Come on now,
> this
> > is
> > being a ridiculous battle about semantics.
>
> How about volunteer ?

"The-volunteer-who-supervises-most-localization-work-in-arabeyes"?

>
> So what about the responsibilities and accountability, that were talked about,
> when delivery dates and deadlines can't be generated or abided by.  As for
> having things to do in your life - we all do (its called time-management
> and prioritization).

If you think you can do it better than I do, please take over whatever I am doing
for Arabeyes, I would be more than happy if someone can do the job right instead
of me. In the meanwhile, I will not promise more than I can deliver, nor will I
stop doing whatever I can under the pretext I can't deliver more.

>
> Chahine, I conduct myself in a professional manner with you and everyone else
> I come in contact with -- if you choose to keep insulting people try to do it
> under your breath.

Nadim, I haven't insulted anyone here. You are hypersensitive about everything I
say, and it has always been so since I cut you from ganging with me 'that day on
IRC', so you take things personally even when I ask you explicitly not to do so.
To be honest with you, I have nothing personal against you or in your favor for
that matter, what I don't want is such hypersensitivity from your side to set a
negative athmosphere here.

>
> As for why don't I assume that - how can I assume it when its possibly not
> true (can everyone state that its not so and declare and give their word
> to that effect in 100% honesty ?).

I can. I don't want to show off, thank god my real life gives me such a full
satisfaction you might not imagine, Arabeyes in fact adds me work without the
slightest personal return. My driver is nationalistic, pure and simple. So the
fact you can't conceive it speaks more about you than it does about others.

>  Why would it matter who's leading a
> project when work needs to be done and completed.

It matters at times 'cut the crap' needs to be said. I guess that most time, it
won't be needed, so most time, things would work the way you want them to work.

>
> :-) those are all companies - last I checked arabeyes wasn't one (the Enron
> thing was a joke - you know, funny ha ha)

Ok, I guess the fact I didn't find it funny didn't help me understand it was
supposed to be a joke.

>
> >                 is not the closed way with set up ways by a few and others
> > under their commands to execute.
>
> Sorry for pulling that sentence out of its paragraph - but it bares
> highlighting since its almost identical to what the charter is calling
> for (note charter A3 + coordinators).  And is exactly what I'm fighting
> against.

A3 specifically protects you from doing things you don't want to do.

>
>
> > But the bazaar model never implied absence of structure. In fact, the model
> you
> > quote DO have a structure. Linus has the last word on what gets in the
> kernel,
>
> linus has the last word because he is the most technically "enabled" one to
> make that decision

Wrong. The Torvalds prestige factor makes you perceive him as being so. There are
people out there who are far more competent, people who warned him against flawed
design when he was still writing the first lines in order to teach himself system
theory. Try Andy Tanenbaum or RMS. In fact, it is not technical but about the guy
thinking (maybe rightfully) of the project as his own. In any case, this is not
about Linus, but precisely about assuming such person is better doing such work
and take decisions about it.

> - I think you are confusing technical decisions (of which I
> have no problem saying "Best idea should ALWAYS win")

And add to it, without having to negotiate every feature or technical procedure
for years

> and simply mandating
> and reaping fruits (if any).

I think you are making this as if it was making whoever would rip these fruits the
future Messiah. Listen, I don't care if anyone says he's been doing the work I've
done if that ever happens, which I don't think it will anyway. I don't care as
long as it is delivered out there. I do this for the kids I know, for the adult
students I've had, and who have a right to software running in their language. I
don't care whether my name, Arabeyes', or Ariel Sharon's name stick on that
software. Why would it matter?

>  I had an issue with Mohammed when he saw no
> problem in the ITP (or whatever it was) article that simply stated his name in
> relation to the project and he didn't see fault with it, implying
>
>  arabeyes = Mohammed
>
> when it should have been
>
>  arabeyes = volunteers + core[Mohammed] (in that order; not out of any
>                                          disrespect, but out of global outlook)
>

Supposing that's what it meant. What's the big deal? Isn't Linus ripping other's
people work in that case? Aren't you happy to have Linux anyway? Isn't the
elections stuff supposed to make it changeable?

>
> I am 100% behind opaque'ness

opaqueness means very few people will take over commands and won't allow others to
see in, or even participate in without their simply executing. The charter
proposed is far more democratic in functionning so I'm 100% in disagreement here,
transparency is something I want, not opaqueness.

> and having people rise to do what needs to be
> done, but this brings us back to square 1.  Plus I can't say that there
> are many projects out there that even attempt to do what Arabeyes has set to
> do - which is to take all aspects of EVERYTHING linux (drivers, editors,
> window-managers, consoles, documentation, keyboards, mappings, etc) without
> a common framework (ie. even dissimilar to Gnome/KDE).

So? Gnome is very similar in many aspects, it is not just about the core libraries
that run it, but as the name suggests it, an application framework that englobes
it all. It is a structured project, not an anarchic chicken house.

>
>
> > >
> > > I've done a variety of things (if memory serves), but I can't say that
> > > I will undertake PR.  I will do what I can to bring linux to Arabs without
> > > getting in the way of any of you coordinators.
> >
> > Nadim, see? here you are breaking the cooperative mode. How is the "you
> > coordinators" supposed to create a cooperative athmosphere when both the
> > hostile
> > tone and the meaning of it is set to emphasize a divide in the team?
>
> No hostile anything - I say what's on my mind.

Don't tell me the "you coordinators" wasn't at least sarcastic. Sarcasm is
hostility. Do not insult my intelligence by telling me it wasn't that, coz I
wouldn't only not believe it.

>  I'm the poster child of
> cooperation (you should know), so please don't belittle me.

I am not belittling you and I don't know what you are posting child of or not, as
I don't care about who did what or who gets the glory for what (assuming we're
sick enough to think this project can put us in history books and satisfy some
infinite ego thirst for posterity). I am just pointing out that same approach that
caused our first clash in fact.

>
> > Now, instead of vague claims of "bringing linux to Arabs" which tens have
> tried
> > before you and failed with more work, what are you going to do concretely
> about
> > it? What useful thing are you going to do about it knowing that we are
> supposed
> > to work as a team? What would make you different from - more necessary than -
> > the tens of volunteers in there?
>
> You didn't want to talk details ("techincal work") prior to this, now you
> want to dive into them ?

This is not about technical work as much as setting work. I mean, why would you
have more right to a core vote than a volunteer if you are not at least going to
take care of things specific, or provide a given 'expertise' and not jump from a
gadget to another for example? I am not implying you will, I am candidly asking, I
want to understand your usefulness, without implying you have none.

> This is NOT a me, them issue nor is it I or you.
> People volunteer to get things done because they want to, not because they
> need to be told what to do (there are those that need that direction as well).

I can tell you that when I started the LAB years ago, I probably lost 99% of my
volunteers applications because everytime I told them 'pick up whatever you want
from the TODO list'. I have learnt that a coordination was necessary the hard way,
because not all volunteers, far from it, are autonomous, especially in such a low
tech environment as the Arab one.

>  But, and I've said this before, in my opinion having a mind-set
> of "I'll do whatever is needed to be done" is a million times better than
> being chained to a category and being unproductful.

foggy and vague concepts, what I am asking for is something precise.

>  If you've ever
> volunteered in real life for something that you wanted to show-up for - why
> did you quit or stop ?

I didn't quit or stop anything I volunteered for so far (in fact, it happened once
before in real life that I gave up things I volunteered for because I found the
people I worked with to be completely incompentent and unproductive; and indeed
the whole org collapsed a few months after I left). And no, I don't need to
volunteer for anything to show off, my life is complete enough by itself for that
in case of need to show off. A concept that seems to escape some.

>
> >
> > Nadim, I am not going to speak for Isam here, but this is the second time in
> a
> > day you give me the impression you're considering Isam to be a half witted
> > peon.
> > I think Isam can speak for himself but I guess he doesn't need you to tell
> that
> > his work is our trash (what have you done that's better than Isam's work?) or
> > that Isam's vote is irrelevant. I happen to think on the contrary that Isam's
> > vote is important, very much for the solidity of this team at least which you
> > don't seem to care much about since you've constantly been behaving in a way
> > that
> > rifts it in gangs (you vs us mentality all the time).
>
> You told me to speak for myself and I can only tell YOU to do the same.

I am not putting words in your mouth, but as I have written, conveying the
impression the words you've written gave me. If the impression was wrong, I stand
corrected.

>
> Please attempt not to put words or intentions in my mouth (I don't do that to
> you and you seem to take lots of liberties in my rights).  As for what was
> said - read the charter YOURSELF to see what is meant.

Thanks, I've written the charter, so I know what it means. A parting vote is there
to unlock blocks, not to replace majority votes. The two have different values
psychologically on the perceived cohesion, so Isam's vote is anything but
irrelevant.


>   What I am fighting for here (have you thought about this) ?

I have my impressions, but you tell me.

> Aren't I
> saying the project is above all else and that we should treat it sacredly and
> remove any potential gray areas away from it (your utopia and heaven vs. dirty
> earth -- what is wrong in treating Arabeyes heavenly)

Because real life projects that are dealt with as in Utopia collapse. Take a look
at communist countries, absolute equality is wonderful in theory.
Because this conversation itself is the best proof that there can be
disagreements, or worst, misunderstandings and conflicts. And that someway that
removes this diversion of energy has to be done.

> ?  Aren't I saying
> we should get results and concentrate on work that needs to be done (and
> generate TODO lists) and move on (instead of cutting up and creating areas of
> control) ?

The two are not incompatible, to the contrary.

> Haven't I spent close to 40 hours a week on Arabeyes (if not
> more) doing, lots of time, semi-crap work just to inch it along ?  Now you
> are telling me I'm creating rifts and I'm not cooperating - how amusing
> (you're feelings and disapproval are noted)...

note it to your heart's content Nadim. I have nothing to hide, and my feeling
toward you are simply indifference on the personal level, frequent disagreement on
the 'Arabeyes' level. Note that too if you want, whatever you might find it useful
for.

>
> As for your comment about translation work - well, let's be honest (can we ?)
> how many files have you translated (if you love it so) ?

Tens of files years before you probably heard of Linux' existence. None in the
frame of Arabeyes, because it would have been stupid to do it when I have yet to
see someone who will do the necessary coding for things to get on track. Moe and I
have discussed to great lengths a little less than a year before you heard of
Arabeyes (Aunyx at the time), and had then set priorities, but we were both very
interested in L10N. L10N has great aspects in the linguistic field, which are
definitely more of a hobby for me than the routine of C lines I have learnt how to
write when I was a kid.
But Nadim, this is not about saying 'I spent 70 hours 32 minutes and 13 seconds
working for Arabeyes', this is about not belittling others' people work, which is
what happens when you say that someone is doing the leftovers. If you didn't know
it had that effect, I guess now you do.

>  I worked DAMN hard to get this off the ground and I really
> wanted to make a difference,

Which I have always acknowledged, and have granted you credit for. so what's the
point?

> and this is the nod I get - thanks Chahine,
> thanks alot.

You're welcome, Nadim, but if you are a victim of something or someone, it is not
of me but of your own hypersensitivity to anything I might say.

Salaam,
Chahine