Re: Some Points, about Arabeyes [Part I]

[Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>]

--- Muhammad Alkarouri <malkarouri at yahoo dot co dot uk> wrote:
> 1. Documentation on Arabeyes policies needs to be improved in two dimensions:
>    a. Historical records of valuable discussions need to exist

I'm not sure this is realistic - we have a handful of active people that
are contributing.  To have them now record discussions and leave a paper
trail is something that would detract them from their work and their
focus.  The mailing-lists (and the search engine on the website) were
meant to house that info (in raw format at least).  We have tried to
collect "policy" issues into various documents as well as semi-FAQs
and HOWTOs.  If you are proposing a "historical records" team, then
sure - find the committed people to do it (outside the realm of the
currently active people) and we'll gladly work them in.

>    b. Arabeyes policies and general 'agreed-upon' things need to be widely
>       known and easily accessible.

I don't think any sane person would disagree here.  Now the question is
simply what policies are not documented so we can jot them down.  Keep
in mind that we don't want to restrict people with gobs of rules and
regulations (we often hear that people are overwhelmed and are confused
on what should be done due to the myriads of instructions and new tools
they have to learn).  In short, that which must be noted (like no spam,
no soliciting of work, etc is already noted in various locations) should
be clearly stated briefly.  Also keep in mind that we want to foster a
sense of FUN and not pin people down with "thou shall not" and "thou shall"
directives unless the policy is of grave importance.  Our track record
has shown that what is in place now (which has evolved and continues to
do so) has worked rather well.

> a. Due to lack of feedback, some projects do most of their feedback through
>    irc and outside projects lists.

Yup, I can't agree more - and many of us shout and scream about this.
Its been noted time and again that any serious topic that concerns the
overall project (or other people) must be noted on the mailing-lists.
I often get told things on IRC upon which time I reply back with
"don't tell me, tell the mailing-list !!".  I recall our talks on IRC
(along while back) about OCR - your enthusiasm was applauded but I
promptly requested that you publish your thoughts/plan on the mailing-list.
I see lots of people doing that and taking the same tact.  The Debian
newt/slang is/was a perfect example of what went wrong on multiple fronts
(IRC-centric method, no clear status, no clear direction, no clear plan,
no clear directive, no clear contact people, etc).

> b. Recently, a row has happened about the Arab/Muslim duality which some
> assume to be from fully existing to non-existent.

Believe it or not, the "policy" gets created due to an event that takes
place - we didn't sit around and plan/consider all the various odd
variations that people might come-up with.  We set some loose guidelines
that people ought to follow (all of which are rather logical and minimalistic)
and expect sanity and common-sense to prevail.

> Suggestion: 
> a. Use a kind of Request for Comment (RFC) of Policy Enhancement Proposal
> (PEP). If any topic needs to be a policy, somebody can suggest it as a
> policy proposal. Discussion can be done about it and it may be changed
> to reflect the general consensus. In the end, the core team will decide
> the policy taking into account opinions and/or consensus. I am speaking
> with http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html in mind.

This is a bit too bureaucratic for my personal taste (and I also see it
wasting lots of people's time).  As noted - we haven't really had any
issues or problems when it comes to "policy".  We tend to simply go with
the flow and after extensive discussions on the mailing-lists mostly
make a consensual decision.  I continue to fail to see what has triggered
this need and/or your worries.

> b. All important correspondence should be through public e-mail,
>    as it is already archived.

That's why the very first email you get from Arabeyes spends 50% of the
correspondence talking about 'communication' and people's need/requirement
to subscribe to the mailing-lists.  In short, we are already doing that.

> c. Every document should be dated. Yes, that includes the charter and
>    the manifesto.

Every document is in CVS which inherently includes a date - ie. again its
there.  You might be looking at a produced (HTML) doc that was sourced
from something on CVS (point those docs out and we'll take care of 'em).

I don't see anything out-landishly new here that we aren't already doing.
But again, keep in mind that we are a _very_ small group of people (yup,
this community is still VERY small) and as such we continue to need to
foster it by making life easier (not harder) for people.  We are VERY
VERY VERY open about all our issues.  The fights, the decisions, the
accolades are all on our lists.  Our weekly meetings are always open to
the public (a few people do join in every once in awhile), so I can't
accept anyone saying Arabeyes is not a truly transparent/open project -
we've gone to __great__ lengths to ensure that.

I'm not looking to make this a debate - I've tried to address all your
points to the best of my abilities and await the various pointers to
where things need to be fixed (questions/remarks noted above) with regard
to which docs need what fixes, etc.

Salam.

 - Nadim



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/