[Sugar-devel] Fwd: [IAEP] getting things done (was Re: Language Learner, a GSOC 2010 idea proposal)
tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net
Fri Apr 30 05:07:35 EDT 2010
I'm forwarding this email from a month ago to relate it to the current
discussion about the code review process and what I think is the
underlying reason: lack of people willing to do maintenance work.
I see the recent frustration on the slow review queue as one more
instance of people being frustrated at things not being done, but at
the same time not willing to discuss what it may take to get those
things done. Note the lack of replies.
I'm going to propose a plan to improve the maintenance of Sugar in a
separate email, but this plan will require that other people other
than Simon and me do their part.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de>
Date: Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:50
Subject: Re: [IAEP] getting things done (was Re: [Sugar-devel]
Language Learner, a GSOC 2010 idea proposal)
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net>
Cc: iaep <iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org>
On 03/30/2010 10:59 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:22, Christoph Derndorfer
> <christoph.derndorfer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> <slight general rant>
>> I generally feel like there's still a real lack of activities aimed at
>> teaching, learning and practicing basic skills such as writing, speaking,
>> using the keyboard/touchpad, learning basic Mathematics, etc. This is
>> *exactly* what primary schools all around the world are doing yet I think we
>> haven't done a great job at addressing this when it comes to providing
>> appropiate activities.
>> </slight general rant>
> This gives me an opportunity for ranting myself ;)
>> From time to time someone shows frustration because SLs hasn't been
> able to achieve something. This in itself is a great thing to happen
> because shows an opportunity to get closer to our goals. But isn't
> actually useful unless we accompany that burst of energy with the will
> of putting in place whatever is needed for that something to be
> In this particular case, we could ask the Activity team coordinator to
> call for a meeting and add it to the agenda. If the team likes the
> goal but it turns out that there aren't available resources for
> tackling the specific work that derives from that goal, we could see
> if the Community team wants to add to their TODO list finding people
> interested in working on that kind of activities.
> We again request the community manager to add to their meeting agenda
> this item, the community team meets and sees if their recruitment
> strategy is adequate or if it can be improved in order to find
> activity developers.
> It may seem that I'm proposing adding bureaucracy for the sake of it
> or that I want to put bosses on top of volunteers, but rather what I'm
> saying is that unless we give visibility to issues, explicitly discuss
> things and people take ownership of responsibility areas, most things
> won't happen.
> So I want to know: do people agree that a team structure with named
> coordinators and members could help us do more and better, or are
> people happy with just hoping that someone will fall from the sky and
> do the right stuff?
a) It is good to put a structure in place with coordinators for
specific areas (e.g. testing team,...) This may sound like a lot of
work, but I am sure it is doable in the end if one concentrate on one
role (see point c as well).  is a good example. Could have been
done by the testing team, based on the release notes. In the end I did
it because I thought this would help to get testing going (the result
can be seen in the page history).
b) People that proposes something should try to help to make it
happen, this will not be possible all the time, but enhances the
chances that things get done.
c) We need more people to actually take action items. If that will not
happen we will always be in the same situation, a few people do many
things, can not address them really and will be burned out quickly.
More information about the Sugar-devel