Wolf,

I wish you best of luck with your (I'm sure well-intentioned) efforts, but thought I'd point out a few issues that you might fiind helpful.

Part of working effectively within the community is posting stuff in the right place. This issues queue is for discussion of revisions to the documentation-related content of the site, namely care and feeding of the Handbook. I'm sure there is a more effective place than here to post a message relating to the administration of the site as a whole, much less Association issues (which AFAIK don't intersect that much with d.o. issues).

Another part is trying to communicate clearly. As you point out, your language limitations are one issue, but another is that you don't actually state your point(s), at least not clearly and succinctly. I did read your long post, but what you were quoting, where it came from and your own writing seemed all mixed up to me - and I'm not just talking about formatting, but at least clearly showing where one bit ends and the next begins would be helpful.

The bottom-line single point I did understand (I think) was that you don't think visitors/users/contributors to the site should be "subordinate" to the appointed leadership - is that right? Or were you trying to propose a more "democratic" method of selecting those with authority to determine what happens on d.o.? I'm not arguing with any of your points, just trying to understand specifically what the points you're trying to make actually are.

You should understand that those people are creating code for their own purposes and reasons. The fact that they make this code available to those of us that are simply users of the software (often disparaged as "leeches"), does not create any obligation for them to do anything else we might happen to want. Legal entities like the Association are just a tool help facilitate the goals of Drupal's developers (the coders), and I don't think there will ever be a point where a formal legalistic organization will be in a position to try to herd this bunch of cats. In fact if this happened, I reckon most of the talented coders would pick up and move on.

All in all, I think this post could be interpreted as the ravings of a lunatic a bit of a rant, so if you're actually trying to accomplish anything, I'd advise presenting your ideas in a clearer format and a more helpful tone. Not only helpful to the community as an abstract concept, but to the actual people that are basically devoting a good chunk of their lives to improving Drupal.

I hope you find this helpful, and apologize in advance if you interpret it as anything but constructive.

Hans

Perhaps, what HansBKK is saying is- people have limited time to spend reading so we must be mindful of the time it takes for a reader to go through our posts. There is limited attention available. When we have long posts of great frequency, these channels will be ignored.

1) you should try to make your point more concise (clear, brief).
2) use "blockquote" to separate out quoted text and your own text.
3) he wishes to help you with the best intentions, and this is why he offered the advice.

And finally... submit your comments perhaps to the http://groups.drupal.org/drupal-association
- and there you will get useful feedback.

You can present it to them as an issue for both documentation and the Association.

I've tried, but I too do not get your point.

• What do you see as a problem,
• and what actual steps do you think are needed to fix it?

Briefly, please.

If I read your post right, you say "individual contributors" do not have any automatic "authority" over the d.o. community or site.

Well, No. They don't. Anyone that "contributes" to GPL open source code or documentation does not actually have any say in what happens to it next. You may think that's a problem, but that's part of the enforced freedom of GPL.

Internal, physical control of d.o. infrastructure is delegated to a select few talented and trusted individuals. If, (heavens forbid) they all went rogue at once and did Bad Things, the remaining 'community' has the right and ability to clone 90% of Drupal.org and branch a new support community.
Until then, there are channels open to work within the existing structure and make individual approaches to the Drupal Association and the Webmasters. You don't need a way to take authority away from the current team and give it to a more vaguely defined, non-existant group of 'regulators'.
The teams exist already.

If you have ideas and issues that you think are not getting enough attention (I know you do) I still don't think that staging a coup is going to help.

I see the shape of your ideas in the suggestions for teams redesigns - but I just do not see the need or the advantage - or support for the effort needed. I know you've been putting lots of thought into it, but I don't think you've succeeded in motivating any people that can join in.

I know you are frustrated because you cannot make things happen. I'm sorry for that, but I also don't see how to force it through.

That doesn't mean the system needs fixing. Maybe just the idea needs fixing.

.dan.

Wolf,

Thanks for your constructive reaction to my comments.

>All what is written on Drupal.org belongs AFAIK to Documentation. Do you think that the Drupal Associations Statutes do not be part of the documentation of Drupal.org?

I may be wrong, but my impression is that the docs team is specifically for managing the static (non-forum) content that relates to documenting Drupal the software, IOW the Handbooks, the content that shows up here as it is created and updated. Of course as useful information flows through the forums, it should be brought into the structured Handbooks, but in practice it probably only comes to the doc team's attention after it arrives there.

A descriptive page that talks in general about the Association would be included, but a discussion of their goals and Statutes is their internal business, and should be conducted within whatever channels they have established.

> Do you are against the wish the me(and hopefully others) wish to have clear Authorities on Drupal.org as for building a staff of members that may help out in contradictions and policies on Drupal.org?

I don't fully understand, so I'll try re-phrasing and you tell me if I got it wrong:

There should be a published list of all teams and their members posted prominently for all to see, and perhaps a documented formal process to help people with problems with d.o. rules and procedures to try to have those rules and procedures changed.

Is that right?

If so, yes, I do disagree with both of these ideas, or at least I'm perfectly happy to have these issues decided by the members of those teams themselves.

I think if the team lists were "too transparent" it would mean that the team members would be too-frequently contacted by new visitors with questions and would never be able to get their real work done. This would result in the team members having to close off the channels of communication, so there would need to be a special list of people who have permission to contact them, with another layer of management, policies etc. overhead.

Regarding an "appeals" process, it currently works like this - anyone can post their concerns to issues queues; if people agree they +1 and comment positively. If they don't agree with you they probably remain silent rather than posting -1. Some people may have "ignore/filter" software set up so that they don't even see postings by people that annoy them or whose posts they can't understand - for example, by posting such long messages like this one I am in danger of having all my messages ignored by many community members.

I do not think having more formal rules and procedures would help the community get its work done, as legalistic people who enjoy debating rules would distract the lead developers from their real work. Any ideas with enough support by respected community members will probably get implemented as long as someone with the time and skills steps up to do the actual work. Of course for issues regarding d.o., just as with the Drupal code itself, that person needs to be trust and respected enough by the leaders to be given the necessary access permissions, and that can only be earned over time by cooperative and constructive contributions that are valued by the community.

Bottom line, if you're asking my advice - you're wasting your (and our) time on this particular issue, which would be better spent on other things.

In your case, perhaps English lessons? Or having a native English speaker edit your postings before you publish them?

Again, I may be a bit too blunt, but I am honestly just trying to help.

Hans

I don't read what you say too harshly wolfflow. I know it's just inaccurate tone sometimes :-)

Although I know you have volunteered - I still don't see much point in a dedicated, newbies-only support group.
I think we all do help where we have time or interest, but I won't be putting myself on the newbies-list. Throw them in the deep end to mix it up with everyone...

@wolfflow, I get what your point about documenting the "teams" we have and what their roles/tasks are. You have that in another issue. I think I am still not really getting the heart of this particular issue. A number of people have tried at clarification and there seem to be multiple things going on. Is it:

- You want to create a new "team" for newbies?
- You want to create documentation about teams? (for which there is already an issue)
- You want to change the structure of the teams on Drupal.org?

Related to that, I don't understand exactly a) why this issue is in the documentation queue and b) how any of this relates to the Drupal Association. Maybe if you could zero in on those points, I could get a clearer picture of what you hope to accomplish from creating this issue.

I think the fact that his request to delete his own content regarding a site case study was declined, after he closed the site referred to in that content, is also an issue. Hence the reference to the content licensing.

Judging from the content in #11, I think wolfflow is perhaps suggesting a person (or team of people) who could function as a kind of community ombudsman, with the goal of shepherding new users (or perhaps non-native-English speakers) around the community. A sort of community ambassador, if you will, in the same sense as Amazon's tag line of "Drupal adventure guide".

If that's the case (and there's no guarantee this is a correct interpretation of the posts), then I'll guess that:
- there's probably general agreement that we should all do our part to help new users (so why have it formalized)
- all of us try to understand broken English as best we can (and this issue is an example of that)
- too much hand-holding and shielding from the community may be a deterrent to learning more about the community
- this issue, indeed, probably only relates to the documentation queue in that our documentation should be clear, unambiguous and easy for newcomers to find and understand.

Closing this issue since I don't think we ever got down to what the real issue is/was and how it is a documentation issue. There is another issue for docs about making a page to describe the various teams on d.o and I don't think there is anything else here that directly applies to a documentation issue.