On 11/06/2013 12:30 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>> Do they consider their roles to be part of a
MediaWiki centric
>> meritocracy or a Wikimedia centric meritocracy?
(...)
I also caution against use of the
"meritocracy" term, as I think it's
pretty loaded and has a history of enabling stagnation and ingraining of
cabals and antisocial behavior in free software communities. While I
certainly like to think I've earned my fancy title with years of hard work,
there are strong social/popularity and random-event components in any kind
of ranking like this.
Agreed. I meant "meritocracy" in its unloaded form and I'm happy to use
whatever alternative term. A typical open source project has committers
and maintainers, roles that we have as well. They also have a release
team, which we have as well. Some have a formal project leader
(temporary or for life, individual or plural), some have none, as it is
our case now.
Is this what this thread is all about? Having a project lead role to
make decisions when maintainers alone are not enough?
Wikimedia vs MediaWiki centric... yes, it's complicated--and then again
perhaps it's not. In any case, the structure and roles of this project
should come from within and be independent from the structure and roles
of the WMF.
--
Quim Gil
Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil