[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Fund raising advertisement on the DPN

Hi all,
I haven't written much, on purpose, in this very hot thread for various
reasons: first of all I was
really uncomfortable with the non-regular contributors standing up and try
to force a decision that it's supposed to have to be a *team* decision
(as our beloved do-ocracy should work).
In addition, my point of view is totally the same as David's,
so I saw no point in copy-pasting his mails :).
But the main reason is that, even if I think that public
discussions on such delicate topics are really important, I was disturbed by
the amount of energies spent on this topic while the last issue of DPN is
waiting to be completed and released since almost two months.
And I saw no one of the oh-so-active-in-this-topic people work on that.
It's too easy, IMO, to claim to be part of the team only when there's a
decision to be taken, writing zillion of mails, and not when there is
actually *work* to be done on DPN.
Only David has worked on it during this time. IMO facts speak better
than words.

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:06:52PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> I was partly referring to Raphaël's behavior on this thread. Sending
> numerous messages on this list about this topic sounds highly
> inappropriate: presenting himself as “a regular contributor of the
> publicity team” while being obviously in conflict of interest, and
> “wonder[ing] what's the proper way to escalate this” really looks like
> the do-ocracy can be respected on one side (press team decision), but
> needs to be bypassed on the other (for the exact same topic).


> Deciding directly between the actors, and not in a public place like
> this one may also have been an advantage to find a quicker consensus. Of
> course, if concerned people all go in the same direction, there is not
> much to argue anyway.
> Having the discussion in a public place is a good thing, since it allows
> people to share their point of view, and to give advice, but seems to
> make it a bit more difficult to take a final decision when external
> people wants to lobby for a specific decision. The blurry line of the
> publicity team (who is a member, who is not) doesn't seems to help here.
> When Stefano “encourage[s] the people regularly doing DPN to decide”,
> that's more in line with the do-ocracy. I'm not advocating private
> discussion, but it could have been less “annoying/demotivating” if
> non-regular editors of the DPN had been less active on this thread.

I, too, find really demotivating that non-regular editors can drive a
decision of such importance. It makes you feel like your active and
enthusiastic work during this last year - writing DPN every
two-weeks or so- isn't so valuable.


"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,
but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint is more 
like a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey... stuff."
							The Doctor

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: