Re: Some Points, about Arabeyes [Part I]

[Muhammad Alkarouri <malkarouri at yahoo dot co dot uk>]

 --- Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com> wrote: 
> --- 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.

You mean there is no realistic way to do it, if I understood you right?

>  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.

Re-reading my e-mail with my next e-mail (replying to Arafat) will give a
clearer meaning to what I mean. I am not suggesting a revolutionary thing.
Rather, it is just small changes in places and more sticking to already
existing rules in others. By no means I meant to create a huge overload on
already existing projects. However, I believe such a small adjustment will make
much more improvement that the effort made into it.

> 
> >    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.
> 

That is what I am speaking about. Not that Arabeyes needs to make policies. The
policies that it actually had to make should be documented. Some times. there
is a need, which you mention by "the policy is of grave importance". In such a
case I would rather have an answer: please check wiki page X, than have an
answer: why did you do that don't you know that this is prohibited. In the
second case you are actually displaying a red card 'thou shalt not' even more.
As for believing that this is working rather well, I hope so. But I am seeing
some shortcomings. Probably because I wear glasses.

> > 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.

This is a good example of such a case. What we need to do is make it a policy
or, more specifically, document this policy.

> 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.

Exactly. We don't need to create rules in terms of 'ÃÑÃíÊ'. What needs to
happen in such a case is we have a specific event, we set guidelines we write
it, probably in a wiki. By the way the only reason I don't like a wiki for
policy documentation is that it is by default not secure (AFAIK). If the agreed
upon page can be locked after the policy is done, this will be fine.

> 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.

I hope that by now I have made the presentation a bit less bureaucratic. No
real time is wasted because already the discussion is done; the doc part is not
that difficult, I hope.
 
> > 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.

I have suggested before adding some links, like the charter, about, etc. to
this e-mail.

> 
> > 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).
> 

The charter and the manifesto:)

> I don't see anything out-landishly new here that we aren't already doing.

The thing is that I am trying to make as small changes as possible so this can
be done without additional labour and wasted time. I could have suggested more
radical steps, but I know it isn't worth it.

> 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.

Every newbie comes here.. he/she is not aware of your previous culture, fights
and decisions. He/she has to step on it again and again to learn them. He/she
needs time to 'integrate' in the existing non-written culture.
As for transparency, it was suggested that not everybody has the right to know
our decisions. I was merely referring to the already existing culture.

> 
> 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.
> 

Seems this time I am at fault. I have sent my message exactly so as to
encourage a debate about the good, the bad and the ugly. If all of you believe
that there is no need for a debate then, well, I have to get used to be the odd
man out. We do have debates on less important topics, IMHO.

Remember, most of these suggestions are not major changes; they are piggybacked
on existing infrastructure.

> Salam.
> 
>  - Nadim
> 
> 

Salam,
Muhammad Alkarouri


	
	
		
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html