Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

[Scott Kitterman]

> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:00:57 +0000 Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If the CC need to,
>>> we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in
>>> Ubuntu, and will do so.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Certainly the CC can (and if they can't you, as SABDFL, can).  That
>> doesn't
>> mean you should.
>>
>> While the outcome in this case is clearly reasonable, I think some push
>> back about how the decision was taken is also reasonable.  As nearly as
>> I
>> can determine, the discussion that led to this decision was all, or
>> nearly
>> all, non-public.  I understand that there was some sense of urgency, but
>> I'm not aware of any actual need for privacy.
>>
>> Transparency in governance is an essential thing for Ubuntu (IMO).
>> Personally, I find the lack of transparency (and the negative reaction
>> to
>> calls for transparency) unfortunate at best.  Many of the people
>> involved
>> in Ubuntu believe that working in an open and collaborative manner to
>> produce software (and a Linux dostribution) is the best, most effective
>> way
>> to do it.  It shouldn't be suprising to find that perspective
>> generalized
>> to other aspects of the project.
>>
>
> "Information is a substitute for trust".
>
> In other words, in environments where people don't trust each other,
> they tend to demand more and more information. "Who took this decision?
> Why did they take this decision? What was considered in taking the
> decision?" etc.
>
> In really sick communities you will observe endless discussions about
> how a decision should be taken, followed by demands that the decision be
> reconsidered because someone who wasn't paying attention at the time now
> feels that they were excluded from a decision. That's a sign of a
> community with low trust levels, and poor ability to delegate.
>
> Remember, governance in the Ubuntu community is delegated from the CC
> (and ultimately me). We believe in having a broad strong base of talent
> to handle the huge scale of Ubuntu, but that's not the same as believing
> that every decision should be taken in a completely consultative and
> transparent manner. Don't confuse those two! That's as bad as confusing
> Ubuntu and democracy - this is an appointed meritocracy.
>
> We try to nominate the most competent people to the right positions and
> then trust them to make decisions which bind all of us. We DON'T second
> guess those decisions except in extreme cases. The various teams lead
> because we trust them to lead.
>
> This thread was a clear example of a lack of trust. My point was that in
> your positions you either trust the CC, and work with it, even in cases
> where it is moving faster than you, or you step aside. If you don't
> trust the CC, you won't get anything done in Ubuntu.
>
> In any event, look at the scale of the decision taken. It was about
> extending *delegated authority* to two people for a short period of
> time. That does not warrant an extended conversation by all the people
> cc'd. Be respectful of people's time. Trust decision makers to take
> decisions, and focus on the things you can do in the area of your
> responsibility and competence.
>

This approach assumes godlike perfection from leadership.  Trust is not a
binary condition.  I trust my fellow Ubuntu developers to effectively have
root access to my systems (via the archive), but that doesn't mean I'm
willing to share the passphrase for my gpg key with them.

One of the roles of the community is to understand and (if needed)
critique the actions of our leadership.  This entire thread started off
because of an incorrect statement that the memberships had been extended
based on the decision of one person.  None of this extended
misunderstanding would have happened if the work had been done in public
where it should have been, so if there is a place to put the blame for the
waste of everyone's time, put it there.

Scott K