On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:31:09 -0400
Chloe Kudryavtsev <toast_at_toastin.space> wrote:
> >> We want to rotate people, period.
To be honest, I find this worrying. Who are "we" here?
There are people in this very thread that explicitly said they don't
There are a significant amount of people who have not responded to this
proposal at all for various reasons, so I have spent this week calling
people to ask what they think and what they feel about it.
There have also been people that in private has reached out to me and
expressed concern about this proposal, where it comes from and what
your intentions are.
My impression is that people are worried about this rotation thing.
> > Maybe I was unclear. I was talking about the project as a whole. We
> > don't elect our contributors. They join on their initiative.
> We indeed do not elect our contributors.
> The rotation stuff *only* applies to base.
So my point here is that whatever happens in the
leadership tend to propagate to the rest of an organization. If you
want honesty in the organization, the leadership needs to be honest. If
you want diversity in an organization, you start in the leadership
board. If you want a peaceful organization you need to have a peaceful
So lets flip this rotation of people thing around.
In case that that would want to have forced rotation through the
organization, where we would want to replace people, regardless if they
are good or bad, then the logical step would be to implement forced
rotation in the "base" team.
But if we want to keep the good people within the he organization, then
maybe forced rotation of "base" team is not the best approach. I mean,
it would not surprise me if losing good people in the rotation process
becomes a side-effect, a hidden cost.
Is rotation worth the risk of losing good people?
Maybe it is.
But before you say that we will not lose anyone (we already lost at
least two over this), please imagine yourself in this situation: You
create a small distro and spend 13 years to raise and maintain your
baby. You see people come and people go. You see people stick in good
times and bad times. Then the distro grows big.
And a new person shows up and after 5 months he says:
- We want Chloe to step down. Anyone can take over, just not Chloe.
- Hum sure, why not, would be nice to let someone else deal with the
people drama. I could be a part of a technical lead team instead,
that would be nice.
- No, no! We don't want any separate technical lead team at all. *We*
want Chloe to step down. Period. But she may come back in a year.
So to prove to everyone - including yourself - that you are not a power
abuser, you do step down.
But would you actually want to come back after that?
Received on Thu Apr 11 2019 - 23:03:36 UTC