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
teasing.
I like the idea in theory of Mini Objectives. I think there is some
potential to explore further there.
--
Cheers,
Justin W. Flory (he/him)
justinwflory.com
TZ=America/New_York