[Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

[James Cameron]

On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 06:46:05PM -0500, David Farning wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:59 PM, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> > p.s. it is good that you are being transparent with your
> > decisions, because that gives you a chance to have them publically
> > reviewed.  ;-)
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 12:04:11PM -0500, David Farning wrote:
> >> Thanks for the update. Currently, AC does not have the
> >> credibility to participate in the design process.
> >
> > To not participate in the design process is entirely your
> > decision, but, if you'll accept my advice, your reasoning for the
> > decision is flawed!
> >
> > Credibility is not what you think it is.
> 
> In this context credibility is a combination of trustworthiness and
> expertise... which is individually earned from one's peers. At this
> point I don't expect that either I nor any of the developers from
> Activity have established credibility within Sugar Labs.

By what mechanism does this make problematic participation in the
design process?

The process needs a wide range of input.

The process needs people who have low expertise, because expertise
can bias the process in other ways; ways that lead to satisfied
developers and puzzled users.

The process needs people who have low trustworthiness, because they
can be brave with their input, despite not being able to follow up.

Sugar Labs has had valuable contribution from people with low
expertise and trustworthiness.

> Trustworthiness is also pretty straight forward:
> 1. Does the individual have a track record of, saying what they will
> do and then doing what they said they would do?
> 2. Is the individual able to fairly balance their own interests, the
> interests of the project, and the interests of the ecosystem?
> 3. Is the individual able to bring out the best in themselves and
> other around them though effective work and communication?

I don't quite meet those definitions of trusthworthiness.  Can I go
now?  ;-)

You are undermining your reputation by showing a behaviour pattern
characteristic of young boys playing football.  The boy who owns the
ball has rights.  When they are not satisfied, they take their ball
and go home.  You want a ball to throw into play; your expertise and
trusthworthiness; because this gives you better business outcomes.

Look around at the players.  The boys from the OLPCA family have been
called away; trouble back home.  The boys from OLPC Australia are busy
off to one side finishing their game.  There's a new game about to
begin (the design process for next release), and the coach (release
engineer) is about to blow his whistle.  The crowd gathers.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/