Hmm, I read, but there isn't much to comment on, except a 'Thanks'. You're doing a great job at making the infrastructure more scalable and useful.

I don't like IRC for serious discussion because with multiple persons it gets chaotic (there is no sub-threading or quoting) while you cannot use the normal gestures like in real life conversation either. Because its real-time there is also problem with different timezones, and I like how you're trying to solve that.

certainly whining and moaning are easier/take less time than reading serious documents and reacting appropriately. That also means feedback delay is increased : not everyone lives on the same schedule and commitment level as the council members. I for one have had simply no time for tmo matters in the past few weeks (typing this on an E71 in the airport :-)

Never? One of the lessons in this transcription was put in the end 'stop speaking in absolutes'.

To give you an example where community input worked: after the first election when it was pointed out the voting method was not ideal much feedback and discussion arose, alternatives were provided, including one with available code. Maybe there was too much discussion, but otherwise this was solved very well by the Council and the Community.

When you require useful input you can simply ask the person that by quoting them (or PMing them). Which you've been doing. If you keep that friendly then good job. Perhaps PM those people you've been missing now, or accept that they will read it later, or do not care (anymore). But have some patience, and then conclude.

In this discussion on IRC there was a lot of organisation/infrastructure discussion, and not everyone is good at such. There is also this saying 'no news is good news' which means that after you haven't received feedback (but did receive views and thanks) apparently people agree with you.

I believe also your task as Council is to keep into account the feedback you received which was valuable (no matter if you agreed on it) and keep that in mind during an IRC discussion like this. If you couldn't remember it, it was most likely not important enough.

Sometimes, even when you don't reach a goal you would wanted to reach you still did a fantastic job, even when someone else is #1 or you do not get that pet on your back.

That may actually be an example of that to which GeneralAntilles was referring. In August 2008, Dave Neary sought to launch a discussion of the proper voting method for the first Community Council election.

Though there was very little discussion at that time, once the election was underway, a number of people came forward with complaints. That led to the fruitful discussion you remember. The process was then repeated, though to a much lesser degree, with the second election.

The community appears to have settled into an improvement process that approximates:

1. ask for input
2. receive very little
3. take action based upon the input received
4. receive a significantly greater volume of input
5. act to refine that built in 3 based upon 4
6. goto 1

Having recognized this, the Council is leading an effort to improve step 1 as much as possible. However, the gains made thus far, while significant, have been insufficient to reduce 4 to acceptable levels. It will likely never be eliminated completely, if for no other reason than the continuous addition of new members to the community, but the improvement process is critical.

Unfortunately, Council members often take a beating during 4 from those who--just as unfortunately--feel beaten by 3. Hopefully, as the community--not just the Council--works on improving communication and planning processes, we'll see a stronger, happier community with fewer people feeling attacked and defensive.

Well, duh!

-T.

Of course, this is what we all (people involved) thought about the maemo.org redesign and integrating itT into maemo.org/Talk. Unfortunately, it turned out not to be the case. But, I appreciate your input. It is helpful.

Tim

Tim - Thank you for taking the time to post a link to the meeting archive and posting the meeting minutes. As I said, it was very enlightening.

There are several things I could say, but won't. It is quite clear that any constructive criticism is seen as *****ing and moaning, and as such has no value.

Constructive criticism never will [be seen like that]. Whining & moaning is saying "you did X craply, do it better". Constructive criticism is saying "Thanks for doing X, however I think it could have been done better if Y & Z were done. What do you think?"

There's lots of evidence of the former, and it drowns out the very small percentage of the latter.

sjgadsby's hit the nail on the head in terms of our community's workflow.

Oh, please. This claim is demonstrably false, and if you can't tell the difference between the two, I'm not sure what to tell you.

The great Gadsby strikes again. You always have such a great way with words. My favorite is step 4; a "significantly greater volume of input" indeed!

But when you lay it out on the table like that, it looks a lot like the workflow I see in a lot of places. Step 4 is usually a bit calmer, with less bulging neck veins and bared teeth, and more, how did Jaffa put it, "Thanks for doing X, however I think it could have been done better if Y & Z were done. What do you think?"