On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 01:14:23PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava said:
> >> Then please define what a volunteer should fulfill to be
> >> suitable. There was already the request for a job description...
> > Scratch an itch they have? We are not looking for employees,
> > we are looking for partners. People who don't expect to be spoon
> > fed. Who see a need and take initiative and step in to do the work.
>
> Partners... rotfl... and you still believe in Santa Claus as well?
>
> Sorry, your "arguments" are awkward. My grandma could do better than you
> to make me believe what you're saying...
>
> Supply *facts*, not hot air. You need volunteers? Then tell the public
> what kind of volunteers and for what tasks do you need some.
> Without this you're looking for slaves that do what you want them to do,
> not for volunteers.
Now, see, that's where you're wrong. We need volunteers. Volunteers
that decide for themselves what they do, that don't need to be told.
That find out where the problems lie, and go chase them. Fix them. That
believe in the idea we're all chasing. They don't need to be told those
things -- not by other volunteers, not by bosses, and certainly not by
job descriptions.
Yeah, we have a project leader, but he doesn't actually have to lead; if
he had, we wouldn't be as good as we are.
The day I turn out to be someone's slave is the day I resign as a Debian
Developer. But don't worry, I don't plan to.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature