mavrothal wrote:I do not think that has anything to do with "management".
Is more of an indication of what potential contributors are getting into.
Today woof-build puppies, no-mater who the builder is, have the
recorded co-operation of 24 person (plus
jamesbond, Barry of course and several more unrecorded from the BK era or latter).
The next contributor has an idea how (s)he can contribute.
Fixing build scripts, fixing/changing puppy applications/scripts, adding new base distro or just a new features, etc.
(S)he may or may not like this (mostly inglorious) approach or the people involved or something else and thus act accordingly, but does not need to pledge or commit to anything and (s)he can come and go as (s)he pleases.
To that extend some indication of how to proceed may be useful to the person reading this call.
It will also indicate that things are thought over to some extend and the goal is tangible.
However, as jamesbond suggested (and if you go through the first 15 pages
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
of the thread I quoted above, you'll see) do not despair and start coding! If people can see your effort trying to learn and/or teach fishing (as oppose to sell or buy fish), is more likely to contribute.
Hi mavrothal.
24 people co-operating to the woof-CE process? Who are you taking me for?
The Out house sink sponge?
Co-operating in the informal sense, probably, co-operating out of sync, certainly.
Co-operation in a structured way and in sync, that's a no and that's a fact.
Woof-CE does not work in structured in-sync way, certainly not as a
structured co-operative would. Besides it's a top down management derived
from Barry K's "bernevolent dictatorship".
Hello direct democracy, close-to-the-people management? Wrong address, I
suppose.
24 people? When jlst is complaining publicly on this forum that he's a team
of one? (My heart goes out to the man.)
24 people? That's a lot of people doing a lousy revision job on the Dpup
Stretch-7 template. Considering all the oversights, etc., found on the
specific thread by ttuuxxx, me and various other people.
Sorry mavrothal, please go sell that salad somewhere else?! That said, it's
probably not impossible for 24 very part-time, very absent-minded people,
to do a lousy revision.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to defining process, you may have a point, some people are attracted
by it.
But I'll stick to my guns that it should be defined not by me or the boss or
the team leader, but by the team members.
I am convinced that better testing and revising should occur. Hopefully,
the potential team mate has a complementary idea. And so on, and we
"discuss this over coffee" and come up with a process that satisfies all of us.
What more can I say.
I believe that people are not baby birds with mama bird feeding them
worms. I do not wish to co-operate with "baby birds" waiting to be fed
ideas from the top. I'm certainly not "mama bird".
BFN.