At the same time they can do damage (eg people who don't know them don't know how to weight their input or by being an ass towards good contributors). So, while as long as they obey the reasonable rules of behaviour we have they can surely hang around, there is no reason at all why we can't point out that it's all talk and no work. Talk is cheap, ideas are easy - work is what counts; that's the Free Software culture, it has gotten us this far; and we should make that clear to everyone.
This would argue for having some "counter" against people's profiles for the quantity of their results: code contributed; packages or builds managed; articles published; etc. We not need censorship, but a quick indicator of someone's "value" to the community would help.
Anyone saying "ah bah, I don't like this attitude of openSUSE" should have a look at the biggest (and arguably most successful) FOSS community - the Linux Kernel. The ultimate "show me the code or fuck off" attitude you'll ever see. Not that I advocate mimicking it, it ain't a very friendly place - but it DOES get work done.
The kernel is distinctly different to OS: (correct & useful) code is the delivered value for the kernel and a distribution is a lot more complex. Is it measured by users introduced? Documentation and support delivered? "Polish" to add useability?
openSUSE is, like all Free Software communities, a meritocracy. You EARN the right to speak up (influence) by proving yourself valuable. If you don't contribute, who the f*** are you that we should listen? We're not a company - where managers get appointed to a position because they had the right papers and contacts and get paid well - here, those who actually KNOW what they are talking about are in charge. When we need input from others (like users) we ask for it (eg see the openSUSE users survey).
I don't see anyone in charge, and if it's a meritocracy, I don't see any method by which people's value is assessed, assigned or displayed. It looks more like a Sociocracy to me.
-project is a development list. So those who speak here are contributors - or rather, should be. If you answer questions on the forums, write articles for news.o.o, are an artist for openSUSE, packager, developer - it doesn't matter WHAT you do, you're part of those who make decisions. Nothing, however, is not enough. And opinions we have plenty, so no, giving those is not a contribution, sorry.
You're writing off the contribution that people with experience but little time (like me) have. I contribute to the lists because I've used SuSE since 6.2 and have a lot of experience designing, developing, implementing, managing and using (computer) systems. I contribute my "opinions" because I've seen too many occasions when lessons learned years ago are ignored and the same mistakes repeated.
I don't want to be harsh but in my opinion this thread is going in the wrong direction and I want to make clear where I stand when it comes to those talking on this list. While being friendly is good, we should also be clear. I KNOW there are people here who contribute far more than some of the noisy people here, yet are too humble to speak up. I want to hear THEIR voices instead of some "armchair project leaders", as Will calls 'em.
You should be clear about what "contribution", "merit", "community", "value" mean before excluding (or promoting) people's voices. We've recently watched a painful strategy process which seemed to be creating fog not light. Perhaps a good start would be clarity about what these words mean. Perhaps OS's "product" (offered value to the world) is the community and infrastructure supporting that, and not the distribution? David
Jos
Will
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org