Vision for Kubuntu

[Xen]

Valorie Zimmerman schreef op 24-10-2016 21:30:

> Hi Arno. Xen's rant is echoed by many linux users, but not by those
> who actually do the work. Linux all over the place is a do-ocracy,
> where those who do the work design the systems, and guide the
> direction. I'm not asking for words; there are plenty of words.

You are actually creating a class system where only certain people are 
even allowed to do the work; namely those with certain opinions and who 
want to work in the political agenda of the entire system.

If you disagree with these viewpoints you are not even given a job, 
because you cannot work within the system, you are pushed out.

So it's not a do-ocracy... it's a political do-ocracy where the only 
ones who are allowed to do any work are the ones who subscribe to the 
ideology and nothing else (no one else).

Simply because the other ones are pushed out before they have even 
gotten to the place where they can do any work.

You cannot do any work out of the blue; you have to first go through the 
stages of deployment, so to speak. In a job, that means applying for the 
job (solliciation). Only after given, can you do any. For Linux, that 
means expressing what you want to do. If you express the wrong interest, 
you are turned down.

In a sense this is only logical because a corporate employer would do 
the same. But a corporate employer would not blame the sollicitant who 
was turned down, for not doing any work. However because Linux has an 
ideology they often do not recognise that they behave exactly like 
employers, only less overtly, or perhaps less recognisably.

Still the same dynamics play a role and even though you suggest many 
things you can do or many things you would be interested in, all of them 
are turned down if they do not comply with the wishes the "employers" 
have for their system. This is only natural. What is not natural is then 
blaming the applicant for not trying hard enough or not having any 
intentions to do anything.

You turn down suggestions for what someone wants to do, then it's you to 
blame for that person not doing any work, and no one else.


> I'm asking for people to show up, and not only express their opinion,
> but also promise to do some important jobs, and *then do those jobs*.
> That is the nature of a healthy team.

They show up and you push them out. Because what they want to do doesn't 
agree with what you want from them. They come up with idea after idea 
after idea of what they want to do, what they think they can do to 
improve the system, or to yield something valuable or worthwhile. But 
you do not recognise the worth of it so you turn it down, even not 
knowing what was intended, or what the proposed system actually was, 
because you did not listen to it for more than 5 seconds, usually.

You want employees that do exactly what *you* want. But all others fall 
by the wayside, you can't use them.

And, moreover, you try to get them to shut up as well! For fear someone 
else might get enthused by their ideas!!!

No miss Valorie, you behave just like a corporation and you control your 
communication channels. It is all out in the open, but you can still 
shut people up, if you want.


> Help us get stuff done.

That's not your job as an employer. Your job as an employer is to help 
your employees get stuff done.

But you only want "slaves to the wage" like a regular corporate one. 
This is not how an open source community works, but you don't understand 
open source.

I wish you would stop blaming the people you turn down for not doing any 
work. If you only have a limited perception of what can be done, that is 
your fault, not mine.

If you only have fixed, well described, perfectly delimited positions to 
give out, good luck filling those slots.

But the general idea of open source is that people do what they want to 
do, and you do not allow them to.

Moreoever, you quench and subject any dissenting or alternative thought, 
because it would distract from your core mission. You don't even want 
people talking about it. But your core mission is something so few 
enthuse about, that most 90% of what people could do for Kubuntu is left 
out of the equation. And consequently you have a hard time filling those 
slots. Because you won't allow people to do what *they* want to do, for 
fear it would distract too much from what *you* need to do.

You run it like a boss, I wanted to say before. You run it like a 
company. Like an employer.

You are simply trying to run it like a company and this is your 
corporate communication channel, it is your corporate user support 
channel.

This is not your "where users talk to each other" channel. That doesn't 
fit in with a company. Also this is the reason why IRC is also not free 
to chat either and users are directed to other channels constantly if 
they want to talk about anything that doesn't comply with the missive. 
Same for other systems and organisations as well (distributions, you 
might say).

So yeah what can I say. You are hobbying to run a company using free 
resources, for the most part.

Corporation Kubuntu. But people are not welcome unless they are 
"customers". It's playing house. You are hobbying a company and 
everything has to agree with that. What can I say.