[maemo-community] maemo.org paid contributors (was Re: Monthly Sprint Proposal)

From: Jeremiah Foster jeremiah at jeremiahfoster.com
Date: Thu Apr 9 14:38:47 EEST 2009
On Apr 8, 2009, at 18:35, Ryan Abel wrote:

> On Apr 8, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>> This ought to be obvious to all concerned - before you can hold
>> someone accountable, you need to define their responsibilities.
> . . . and I think we did when we hired you, no?

It would be interesting to look at the documented responsibilities  
from when I was hired. I don't have that at hand, perhaps someone else  

> You outlined it pretty
> well in another email:

Oughtn't that be not put forward just by me, but in conjunction with  
the council and community so that misunderstanding does not occur?

>> 	1. Creating packages for maemo
>> 	2. Maintaing tools for packaging and policy for packaging
>> 	3. Helping, along with the webmaster, to create healthy ecosystem of
>> repositories.
> although I think that assisting developers with packaging needs to be
> near the top of that list.

Excellent feedback, thanks. I will try to do more of this, especially  
on ITt.

>> The current council is ignoring this and looking for ways to "police"
>> and "boss" before the roles are defined.
> Well, now I know what it's like to work for Maemo SW, anyway. . . .
> What _I'm_ seeing here is a strong reaction to the language usage in a
> __question__. Questions aren't statements of intent, nor should they
> receive strong reactions as if they were. If every question had such a
> big reaction, people would stop asking questions outright and then
> where would we be? :)

I think you are mistaken. If I were to say; "What is this rubbish?!"  
while looking at a Corot watercolor, you might accurately understand  
my intent. :P

>> This is an abrogation of the
>> agreement with the previous council, even if that agreement was
>> implicit and poorly defined. It is also an implicit criticism of the
>> paid staff and of the previous council, for some reason Alan feels
>> that the staff need to "stay on task" and need "policing". This is
>> more than poor language choice, it points to the desire for hierarchy
>> in what is traditionally a flat organizational structure.
>>>> Turning to the council for a judgement of people's performance
>>>> leaves
>>>> lots of room for personal opinions and unprofessional appraisals,
>>>> this
>>>> will almost certainly be an area of contention that will require
>>>> delicate handling.
>>> Only if you think the council is opinionated and unprofessional.
>> In some instances the council has been unprofessional, so yes, I do
>> think that.
> If you have a specific issue, I'd like to hear it. This is the same
> sort of thing that spawned this discussion.
>>> I don't think the community (including Nokia) forgets that the
>>> maemo.org
>>> team is made of  people (on the contrary, you are getting much more
>>> personal trust, understanding and appraisal an average employee  
>>> would
>>> get in an average corporate job).
>> To say I get "much more" of those things from the community and Nokia
>> is not factually correct, especially after statements like this;
>> "<qole> I agree that the paid people should work for the community.  
>> So
>> that means that the Council is the "boss" of the paid team, as  
>> elected
>> representatives of the community. I'm just looking for a word that
>> conveys the "buck stops here" role, when there are performance
>> concerns, etc..."
> Notice he said the _average_ employee. Presenting a specific case to
> contradict an average is not factually accurate.
>> Surely you agree that is a direct questioning of the performance of
>> the paid staff?
> I don't. What I see is qole trying to figure out what his role really
> is, requesting that people involved in maemo.org make an effort to be
> clear and open in their reporting, and some proposals for how to make
> that easier for everybody.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree here.


More information about the maemo-community mailing list