Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Re: A Community Change process to mirror the System Change process


Hey Ben!

On 4/1/20 9:43 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> None of my arguments should be taken as "this is a bad idea and we
> should not do it." They're intended as "this is a more complicated
> issue than it seems on the surface."

To put this first, it didn't come off to me that way and constructively
addressing the nuance will bring us closer to something that does work.

> I wholly agree with the second part, but I don't think the "parallel
> process is good" argument follows from this. A more structured
> approach to community is good, but not necessarily one that looks like
> the engineering process. After all, engineering and community require
> different skills. I think a better approach here would be "what would
> a good community change process look like?" not "how can we copy the
> engineering process for community?"

By parallel process, I mean to contrast "there is a process for
engineering" and "there is not a process for community." I agree with
your framing of the question.

> I'm a little leary about over-broadcasting the same message to many
> channels. How many mailing lists, fora, Telegram channels, IRC
> channels, etc do we need to hit before we've hit a sufficient value of
> "everyone"? [[snip]]

Reaching "everyone" is impossible because we don't know who everyone is.
Successful outreach in a large, spread-out community depends on
decentralized mechanisms of communication, loosely tied to some central
authority or mandate (e.g. Council/Mindshare/FESCo/etc).

A comparison I can think of is Matthew's "rings" model for Fedora, but
instead for communication and outreach. Where the center ring is that
"core" active group, and the outermost ring are folks like Bex's llama
farmers making their own Fedora spin. :) You have to depend on folks
in-between those two rings to help communicate the message out too.

> As for the second part, I don't have a fully-formed idea around this,
> but some of it would seem to fit the Objectives process pretty well
> already. The move to Weblate potentially fits into that. Other things
> might be a little smaller than an Objective, but a mini-objective
> process could fit. What would a mini-objective process look like?
> Something in between Objectives and Changes. Like I said, this isn't a
> fully-formed idea yet, I'm just tossing something out for
> consideration.

Aren't the Objectives a mostly engineering-focused process? ;-) Just

I like the idea in theory of Mini Objectives. I think there is some
potential to explore further there.

Justin W. Flory (he/him)

No comments:

Post a Comment