You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@fineract.apache.org by Terence Monteiro <te...@sanjosesolutions.in> on 2016/01/01 04:17:49 UTC
Jira Workflow
Hello Devs,
Since we've got our Confluence and Jira setup, maybe it's time to start
thinking about how we'd like our sprints to work. We've had some discussion
about the committing and release process and my takeaways from these have
been the importance of Community. The initial interest in the project and
the ongoing discussions reflect and lively community at the moment, and I
believe we should aim high and think far at the moment.
So I'm suggesting the following model for Jira:
At the start of each quarter, we review the stories and the features
planned for the quarter. Developers do not need to get involved with high
level details because we'd prefer them to attack pressing issues (like the
battle against poverty) so I mean there is no obligation for devs to
comment or be involved in writing Jira Stories (assuming lazy consensus).
My interesting twist is that stories can be written by Community people
like Ed, people with a proven commitment to the cause of Fighting Poverty
through Technology or even evolve from or be written by people from
Financial Institutions on the ground.
Regarding the 2016 Q1 (Happy New Year folks), we can start with priority
features and bug fixes already in the old Jira system at
https://mifosforge.jira.com and based on the vote and the discretion of our
(El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion Ross and
fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
--
Best Regards,
Terence Monteiro,
Mob: +91 96633 13728
www.sanjosesolutions.in
"Providence", No. 36,
Ahmed Sait Road,
Frazer Town, Bangalore - 5.
Re: Jira Workflow
Posted by Markus Geiss <ma...@live.de>.
I feel it is time to come back to the original intent of this
thread.
Terence is making a few assumptions I like:
1. We use an agile process, e.g. Sprints
2. We want everybody to participate in the evolution of our
software
For me the second point was implicit, given that the community is
the driving factor behind any OS project.
Once we brought over the initial source, we need to provide a first
starting point for our community to proceed with Fineract. For this
I'd agree that we take a look at the current road map and create new
tickets based on their current priority. I don't like the idea to
simply copy over everything b/c we should leave room for new ideas
and paths that Fineract could take on.
Best,
Markus
.::YAGNI likes a DRY KISS::.
On 01/01/2016 06:27 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> :-) email is a really bad communication medium sometimes. In this case my mentioning of voting drew attention away from the important point of your concern - cultural awareness. Had I inserted the words "for example" when mentioning voting perhaps this would not have been the case.
>
> Anyway, no harm done, I hope.
>
> Ross
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Myrle Krantz [mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 4:54 PM
> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>
> Ross responded to my concern as though it had something to do with voting. It doesn't.
>
> Greets,
> Myrle
>
>
>> On 01.01.2016, at 17:34, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What??
>>
>> Your sentence is so meta, with shades of PC, that I don't even know
>> what you said.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a little corrective to your perception of my intention: I did
>>> not raise this concern as a defense to my voting suggestion.
>>>
>>> Greets,
>>> Myrle
>>>
>>>
>>> *Myrle Krantz*
>>> Solutions Architect
>>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
>>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype:
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&
>>> data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c57901e6a358a4b91b31608d
>>> 312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=49ufQ9DXdOgceJ
>>> rN0fvwNQoqn0YjoMLVjLPic97cjMA%3d |
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos
>>> .org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c57901e6a358a4b91b3
>>> 1608d312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ckff7%2bb
>>> uzpCQ1%2bXtFLGtAvuB3d7P8o8otFssGpcOALM%3d
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fface
>>> book.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c57901e
>>> 6a358a4b91b31608d312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sda
>>> ta=JSor5aMFYArSti7hCKGoAv003OAUOc1gsqYwK%2bWMCoU%3d>
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.
>>> twitter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c579
>>> 01e6a358a4b91b31608d312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&
>>> sdata=rrjr6WTOjToTQCa9TN66MlUh3qiaervPZ2TTPs4t1%2bg%3d>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Ross Gardler
>>> <Ro...@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your observations are good ones. Cultural awareness is very important.
>>>>
>>>> The "trick" that I've found to work is to speak and act in a way
>>>> that encourages participation. Take the time to send a few sentences
>>> indicating
>>>> that *EVERYONE* has a voice here and that their voice is of equal
>>>> weight
>>> to
>>>> everyone elses.
>>>>
>>>> Voting is not a mechanism that brings consensus. As others have said
>>>> it creates divides. There are winners and losers. Furthermore, if
>>>> the only person who sees the inherent flaw in the proposal is
>>>> someone without a binding vote how can they make a difference in a
>>>> vote in which their vote doesn't count and even if it did it would be one against many.
>>>>
>>>> Better is to make it clear that anyone with a concern should raise it.
>>>> Then ensure that concern is discussed and addressed to the
>>>> satisfaction
>>> of
>>>> the whole community.
>>>>
>>>> The way to make this happen is not to create rules about how
>>>> decisions
>>> are
>>>> made. It's to create a culture of sharing and respect. A culture in
>>>> which listening and doing is more valuable than talking and
>>>> defining. It's
>>> about
>>>> accepting "good enough" is an excellent contribution while
>>>> incremental improvements that take us from "good enough" to "even
>>>> better" are equally valuable.
>>>>
>>>> You are absolutely correct to worry that this is more difficult in
>>>> some cultures than in others. You should continue to do so. Call for
>>>> specific input from the community as a whole. Ensure you leave space
>>>> for people to contribute how *they* choose to do so. Basically
>>>> actions within the community speak much loader than words in a policy or process document.
>>>>
>>>> With that in mind, does anyone here have a feeling for what the
>>>> right balance is between process and policy for this community?
>>>>
>>>> Ross
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Myrle Krantz [mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org]
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 2:48 PM
>>>> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually most concerned about this aspect of making this an
>>>> Apache project.
>>>>
>>>> I can't find a fully politically correct way to say this, so to the
>>> extent
>>>> that I'm replacing individuals with stereotypes, I apologize. I do
>>>> know that people vary from their cultural norms. I don't know my
>>>> fellow contributors very well. I'm asking this in full recognition
>>>> of my ignorance, hoping that people who know more will correct me.
>>>>
>>>> Some of our contributors come from cultures with a low power
>>>> distance and some come from cultures with a high power distance (US: 40/100, Germany:
>>>> 35/100, Netherlands: 38/100, India 77/100)+.
>>>>
>>>> The Apache approach seems to assume that all participants view
>>>> themselves as equal, or at least have a realistic view of how their
>>>> personal merit allows them to contribute to a discussion. But it is
>>>> possible that those contributors who come from a high-power-distance
>>>> culture, might allow themselves to be cut out of a discussion by a gradient of power.
>>> Indeed, I
>>>> haven't seen many objections coming from our Indian colleagues to
>>>> what we've been suggesting. Even though they are more likely to have
>>>> a customer-contact informed opinion.
>>>>
>>>> From my American perspective, I believe we need to find a way to
>>> encourage
>>>> more active participation in these cases. At the same time based on
>>>> my reading, I'm not sure that colleagues who come from a
>>>> high-power-distance culture even want a level playing field. I'm
>>>> pretty sure it is not possible to impose a level-playing field if it's unwanted.
>>>>
>>>> So the questions are:
>>>>
>>>> * Is this even true? Are our Indian colleagues (or anyone else)
>>>> withholding important reservations? (My source could just be wrong.)
>>>> * Is this really going to be a problem?
>>>> * Is there a way to solve this? Or at least ameliorate it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Happy New Year from Germany,
>>>> Myrle Krantz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> + Source "Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind" Geert
>>>> + Hofstede
>>>> and Gert Jan Hofstede pages 43-44
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Myrle Krantz*
>>>> Solutions Architect
>>>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
>>>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype:
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&
>>> data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d
>>> 312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BE%2fKBTIg2NNg
>>> LVwATGg5zMrFWB77RqCPpqX%2bGMU%2bK5c%3d
>>>> |
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos
>>> .org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c
>>> 4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H8V6JqQ3H
>>> 3zB9F73A8726jutKqQVHDvI3IUnW195s2s%3d
>>>> <
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ffaceb
>>> ook.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed9606
>>> 1934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdat
>>> a=9dvCR8tKj53N0m8q7b13A8yA3l0z8V6M59jLkZH0Wy4%3d
>>>>
>>>> <
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.t
>>> witter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed9
>>> 6061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&s
>>> data=Oxxo2M8RnRRF4iuW66z0kui0GunjG3bzntXZ0KsCmOI%3d
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ross Gardler
>>>> <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 - no leaders around here, just people doing the work. An ASF
>>>>> +project is
>>>>> "led" by whoever is active, that means lots of leaders at any one time.
>>>>> Those "leaders" are always answerable to the community as a whole.
>>>>>
>>>>> This might often seem like it is "nit-picking", it's just a
>>>>> language thing in most cases, especially when those doing the work
>>>>> have the full (silent) support of the community as a whole.
>>>>> However, if there is ever a time that the people doing the work
>>>>> appear to be heading in the wrong direction the flat structure of
>>>>> an Apache project becomes extremely important. For this reason language is very important.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ross
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:45 AM
>>>>> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro <
>>>>> terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> the discretion of our
>>>>>> (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion
>>>>>> Ross and fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
>>>>>
>>>>> We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community,
>>>>> but will pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you.
>>>>> I can help with describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy New Years!
>>>>> -g
>>>
RE: Jira Workflow
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
:-) email is a really bad communication medium sometimes. In this case my mentioning of voting drew attention away from the important point of your concern - cultural awareness. Had I inserted the words "for example" when mentioning voting perhaps this would not have been the case.
Anyway, no harm done, I hope.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: Myrle Krantz [mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org]
Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 4:54 PM
To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
Ross responded to my concern as though it had something to do with voting. It doesn't.
Greets,
Myrle
> On 01.01.2016, at 17:34, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What??
>
> Your sentence is so meta, with shades of PC, that I don't even know
> what you said.
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org> wrote:
>>
>> Just a little corrective to your perception of my intention: I did
>> not raise this concern as a defense to my voting suggestion.
>>
>> Greets,
>> Myrle
>>
>>
>> *Myrle Krantz*
>> Solutions Architect
>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype:
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&
>> data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c57901e6a358a4b91b31608d
>> 312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=49ufQ9DXdOgceJ
>> rN0fvwNQoqn0YjoMLVjLPic97cjMA%3d |
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos
>> .org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c57901e6a358a4b91b3
>> 1608d312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ckff7%2bb
>> uzpCQ1%2bXtFLGtAvuB3d7P8o8otFssGpcOALM%3d
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fface
>> book.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c57901e
>> 6a358a4b91b31608d312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sda
>> ta=JSor5aMFYArSti7hCKGoAv003OAUOc1gsqYwK%2bWMCoU%3d>
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.
>> twitter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c579
>> 01e6a358a4b91b31608d312cc3457%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&
>> sdata=rrjr6WTOjToTQCa9TN66MlUh3qiaervPZ2TTPs4t1%2bg%3d>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Ross Gardler
>> <Ro...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Your observations are good ones. Cultural awareness is very important.
>>>
>>> The "trick" that I've found to work is to speak and act in a way
>>> that encourages participation. Take the time to send a few sentences
>> indicating
>>> that *EVERYONE* has a voice here and that their voice is of equal
>>> weight
>> to
>>> everyone elses.
>>>
>>> Voting is not a mechanism that brings consensus. As others have said
>>> it creates divides. There are winners and losers. Furthermore, if
>>> the only person who sees the inherent flaw in the proposal is
>>> someone without a binding vote how can they make a difference in a
>>> vote in which their vote doesn't count and even if it did it would be one against many.
>>>
>>> Better is to make it clear that anyone with a concern should raise it.
>>> Then ensure that concern is discussed and addressed to the
>>> satisfaction
>> of
>>> the whole community.
>>>
>>> The way to make this happen is not to create rules about how
>>> decisions
>> are
>>> made. It's to create a culture of sharing and respect. A culture in
>>> which listening and doing is more valuable than talking and
>>> defining. It's
>> about
>>> accepting "good enough" is an excellent contribution while
>>> incremental improvements that take us from "good enough" to "even
>>> better" are equally valuable.
>>>
>>> You are absolutely correct to worry that this is more difficult in
>>> some cultures than in others. You should continue to do so. Call for
>>> specific input from the community as a whole. Ensure you leave space
>>> for people to contribute how *they* choose to do so. Basically
>>> actions within the community speak much loader than words in a policy or process document.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, does anyone here have a feeling for what the
>>> right balance is between process and policy for this community?
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Myrle Krantz [mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 2:48 PM
>>> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>>>
>>> I'm actually most concerned about this aspect of making this an
>>> Apache project.
>>>
>>> I can't find a fully politically correct way to say this, so to the
>> extent
>>> that I'm replacing individuals with stereotypes, I apologize. I do
>>> know that people vary from their cultural norms. I don't know my
>>> fellow contributors very well. I'm asking this in full recognition
>>> of my ignorance, hoping that people who know more will correct me.
>>>
>>> Some of our contributors come from cultures with a low power
>>> distance and some come from cultures with a high power distance (US: 40/100, Germany:
>>> 35/100, Netherlands: 38/100, India 77/100)+.
>>>
>>> The Apache approach seems to assume that all participants view
>>> themselves as equal, or at least have a realistic view of how their
>>> personal merit allows them to contribute to a discussion. But it is
>>> possible that those contributors who come from a high-power-distance
>>> culture, might allow themselves to be cut out of a discussion by a gradient of power.
>> Indeed, I
>>> haven't seen many objections coming from our Indian colleagues to
>>> what we've been suggesting. Even though they are more likely to have
>>> a customer-contact informed opinion.
>>>
>>> From my American perspective, I believe we need to find a way to
>> encourage
>>> more active participation in these cases. At the same time based on
>>> my reading, I'm not sure that colleagues who come from a
>>> high-power-distance culture even want a level playing field. I'm
>>> pretty sure it is not possible to impose a level-playing field if it's unwanted.
>>>
>>> So the questions are:
>>>
>>> * Is this even true? Are our Indian colleagues (or anyone else)
>>> withholding important reservations? (My source could just be wrong.)
>>> * Is this really going to be a problem?
>>> * Is there a way to solve this? Or at least ameliorate it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Happy New Year from Germany,
>>> Myrle Krantz
>>>
>>>
>>> + Source "Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind" Geert
>>> + Hofstede
>>> and Gert Jan Hofstede pages 43-44
>>>
>>>
>>> *Myrle Krantz*
>>> Solutions Architect
>>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
>>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype:
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&
>> data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d
>> 312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BE%2fKBTIg2NNg
>> LVwATGg5zMrFWB77RqCPpqX%2bGMU%2bK5c%3d
>>> |
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos
>> .org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c
>> 4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H8V6JqQ3H
>> 3zB9F73A8726jutKqQVHDvI3IUnW195s2s%3d
>>> <
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ffaceb
>> ook.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed9606
>> 1934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdat
>> a=9dvCR8tKj53N0m8q7b13A8yA3l0z8V6M59jLkZH0Wy4%3d
>>>
>>> <
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.t
>> witter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed9
>> 6061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&s
>> data=Oxxo2M8RnRRF4iuW66z0kui0GunjG3bzntXZ0KsCmOI%3d
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ross Gardler
>>> <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 - no leaders around here, just people doing the work. An ASF
>>>> +project is
>>>> "led" by whoever is active, that means lots of leaders at any one time.
>>>> Those "leaders" are always answerable to the community as a whole.
>>>>
>>>> This might often seem like it is "nit-picking", it's just a
>>>> language thing in most cases, especially when those doing the work
>>>> have the full (silent) support of the community as a whole.
>>>> However, if there is ever a time that the people doing the work
>>>> appear to be heading in the wrong direction the flat structure of
>>>> an Apache project becomes extremely important. For this reason language is very important.
>>>>
>>>> Ross
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:45 AM
>>>> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro <
>>>> terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> the discretion of our
>>>>> (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion
>>>>> Ross and fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
>>>>
>>>> We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community,
>>>> but will pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you.
>>>> I can help with describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
>>>>
>>>> Happy New Years!
>>>> -g
>>
Re: Jira Workflow
Posted by Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org>.
Ross responded to my concern as though it had something to do with voting. It doesn't.
Greets,
Myrle
> On 01.01.2016, at 17:34, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What??
>
> Your sentence is so meta, with shades of PC, that I don't even know what
> you said.
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org> wrote:
>>
>> Just a little corrective to your perception of my intention: I did not
>> raise this concern as a defense to my voting suggestion.
>>
>> Greets,
>> Myrle
>>
>>
>> *Myrle Krantz*
>> Solutions Architect
>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org
>> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Your observations are good ones. Cultural awareness is very important.
>>>
>>> The "trick" that I've found to work is to speak and act in a way that
>>> encourages participation. Take the time to send a few sentences
>> indicating
>>> that *EVERYONE* has a voice here and that their voice is of equal weight
>> to
>>> everyone elses.
>>>
>>> Voting is not a mechanism that brings consensus. As others have said it
>>> creates divides. There are winners and losers. Furthermore, if the only
>>> person who sees the inherent flaw in the proposal is someone without a
>>> binding vote how can they make a difference in a vote in which their vote
>>> doesn't count and even if it did it would be one against many.
>>>
>>> Better is to make it clear that anyone with a concern should raise it.
>>> Then ensure that concern is discussed and addressed to the satisfaction
>> of
>>> the whole community.
>>>
>>> The way to make this happen is not to create rules about how decisions
>> are
>>> made. It's to create a culture of sharing and respect. A culture in which
>>> listening and doing is more valuable than talking and defining. It's
>> about
>>> accepting "good enough" is an excellent contribution while incremental
>>> improvements that take us from "good enough" to "even better" are equally
>>> valuable.
>>>
>>> You are absolutely correct to worry that this is more difficult in some
>>> cultures than in others. You should continue to do so. Call for specific
>>> input from the community as a whole. Ensure you leave space for people to
>>> contribute how *they* choose to do so. Basically actions within the
>>> community speak much loader than words in a policy or process document.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, does anyone here have a feeling for what the right
>>> balance is between process and policy for this community?
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Myrle Krantz [mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 2:48 PM
>>> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>>>
>>> I'm actually most concerned about this aspect of making this an Apache
>>> project.
>>>
>>> I can't find a fully politically correct way to say this, so to the
>> extent
>>> that I'm replacing individuals with stereotypes, I apologize. I do know
>>> that people vary from their cultural norms. I don't know my fellow
>>> contributors very well. I'm asking this in full recognition of my
>>> ignorance, hoping that people who know more will correct me.
>>>
>>> Some of our contributors come from cultures with a low power distance and
>>> some come from cultures with a high power distance (US: 40/100, Germany:
>>> 35/100, Netherlands: 38/100, India 77/100)+.
>>>
>>> The Apache approach seems to assume that all participants view themselves
>>> as equal, or at least have a realistic view of how their personal merit
>>> allows them to contribute to a discussion. But it is possible that those
>>> contributors who come from a high-power-distance culture, might allow
>>> themselves to be cut out of a discussion by a gradient of power.
>> Indeed, I
>>> haven't seen many objections coming from our Indian colleagues to what
>>> we've been suggesting. Even though they are more likely to have a
>>> customer-contact informed opinion.
>>>
>>> From my American perspective, I believe we need to find a way to
>> encourage
>>> more active participation in these cases. At the same time based on my
>>> reading, I'm not sure that colleagues who come from a high-power-distance
>>> culture even want a level playing field. I'm pretty sure it is not
>>> possible to impose a level-playing field if it's unwanted.
>>>
>>> So the questions are:
>>>
>>> * Is this even true? Are our Indian colleagues (or anyone else)
>>> withholding important reservations? (My source could just be wrong.)
>>> * Is this really going to be a problem?
>>> * Is there a way to solve this? Or at least ameliorate it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Happy New Year from Germany,
>>> Myrle Krantz
>>>
>>>
>>> + Source "Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind" Geert
>>> + Hofstede
>>> and Gert Jan Hofstede pages 43-44
>>>
>>>
>>> *Myrle Krantz*
>>> Solutions Architect
>>> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
>>> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype:
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BE%2fKBTIg2NNgLVwATGg5zMrFWB77RqCPpqX%2bGMU%2bK5c%3d
>>> |
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H8V6JqQ3H3zB9F73A8726jutKqQVHDvI3IUnW195s2s%3d
>>> <
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ffacebook.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=9dvCR8tKj53N0m8q7b13A8yA3l0z8V6M59jLkZH0Wy4%3d
>>>
>>> <
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.twitter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Oxxo2M8RnRRF4iuW66z0kui0GunjG3bzntXZ0KsCmOI%3d
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 - no leaders around here, just people doing the work. An ASF
>>>> +project is
>>>> "led" by whoever is active, that means lots of leaders at any one time.
>>>> Those "leaders" are always answerable to the community as a whole.
>>>>
>>>> This might often seem like it is "nit-picking", it's just a language
>>>> thing in most cases, especially when those doing the work have the
>>>> full (silent) support of the community as a whole. However, if there
>>>> is ever a time that the people doing the work appear to be heading in
>>>> the wrong direction the flat structure of an Apache project becomes
>>>> extremely important. For this reason language is very important.
>>>>
>>>> Ross
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:45 AM
>>>> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro <
>>>> terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> the discretion of our
>>>>> (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion Ross
>>>>> and fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
>>>>
>>>> We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community, but
>>>> will pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you. I can
>>>> help with describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
>>>>
>>>> Happy New Years!
>>>> -g
>>
Re: Jira Workflow
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
What??
Your sentence is so meta, with shades of PC, that I don't even know what
you said.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org> wrote:
> Just a little corrective to your perception of my intention: I did not
> raise this concern as a defense to my voting suggestion.
>
> Greets,
> Myrle
>
>
> *Myrle Krantz*
> Solutions Architect
> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org
> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Your observations are good ones. Cultural awareness is very important.
> >
> > The "trick" that I've found to work is to speak and act in a way that
> > encourages participation. Take the time to send a few sentences
> indicating
> > that *EVERYONE* has a voice here and that their voice is of equal weight
> to
> > everyone elses.
> >
> > Voting is not a mechanism that brings consensus. As others have said it
> > creates divides. There are winners and losers. Furthermore, if the only
> > person who sees the inherent flaw in the proposal is someone without a
> > binding vote how can they make a difference in a vote in which their vote
> > doesn't count and even if it did it would be one against many.
> >
> > Better is to make it clear that anyone with a concern should raise it.
> > Then ensure that concern is discussed and addressed to the satisfaction
> of
> > the whole community.
> >
> > The way to make this happen is not to create rules about how decisions
> are
> > made. It's to create a culture of sharing and respect. A culture in which
> > listening and doing is more valuable than talking and defining. It's
> about
> > accepting "good enough" is an excellent contribution while incremental
> > improvements that take us from "good enough" to "even better" are equally
> > valuable.
> >
> > You are absolutely correct to worry that this is more difficult in some
> > cultures than in others. You should continue to do so. Call for specific
> > input from the community as a whole. Ensure you leave space for people to
> > contribute how *they* choose to do so. Basically actions within the
> > community speak much loader than words in a policy or process document.
> >
> > With that in mind, does anyone here have a feeling for what the right
> > balance is between process and policy for this community?
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Myrle Krantz [mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org]
> > Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 2:48 PM
> > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
> >
> > I'm actually most concerned about this aspect of making this an Apache
> > project.
> >
> > I can't find a fully politically correct way to say this, so to the
> extent
> > that I'm replacing individuals with stereotypes, I apologize. I do know
> > that people vary from their cultural norms. I don't know my fellow
> > contributors very well. I'm asking this in full recognition of my
> > ignorance, hoping that people who know more will correct me.
> >
> > Some of our contributors come from cultures with a low power distance and
> > some come from cultures with a high power distance (US: 40/100, Germany:
> > 35/100, Netherlands: 38/100, India 77/100)+.
> >
> > The Apache approach seems to assume that all participants view themselves
> > as equal, or at least have a realistic view of how their personal merit
> > allows them to contribute to a discussion. But it is possible that those
> > contributors who come from a high-power-distance culture, might allow
> > themselves to be cut out of a discussion by a gradient of power.
> Indeed, I
> > haven't seen many objections coming from our Indian colleagues to what
> > we've been suggesting. Even though they are more likely to have a
> > customer-contact informed opinion.
> >
> > From my American perspective, I believe we need to find a way to
> encourage
> > more active participation in these cases. At the same time based on my
> > reading, I'm not sure that colleagues who come from a high-power-distance
> > culture even want a level playing field. I'm pretty sure it is not
> > possible to impose a level-playing field if it's unwanted.
> >
> > So the questions are:
> >
> > * Is this even true? Are our Indian colleagues (or anyone else)
> > withholding important reservations? (My source could just be wrong.)
> > * Is this really going to be a problem?
> > * Is there a way to solve this? Or at least ameliorate it?
> >
> >
> > Happy New Year from Germany,
> > Myrle Krantz
> >
> >
> > + Source "Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind" Geert
> > + Hofstede
> > and Gert Jan Hofstede pages 43-44
> >
> >
> > *Myrle Krantz*
> > Solutions Architect
> > RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
> > mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype:
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BE%2fKBTIg2NNgLVwATGg5zMrFWB77RqCPpqX%2bGMU%2bK5c%3d
> > |
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H8V6JqQ3H3zB9F73A8726jutKqQVHDvI3IUnW195s2s%3d
> > <
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ffacebook.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=9dvCR8tKj53N0m8q7b13A8yA3l0z8V6M59jLkZH0Wy4%3d
> >
> > <
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.twitter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Oxxo2M8RnRRF4iuW66z0kui0GunjG3bzntXZ0KsCmOI%3d
> > >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 - no leaders around here, just people doing the work. An ASF
> > > +project is
> > > "led" by whoever is active, that means lots of leaders at any one time.
> > > Those "leaders" are always answerable to the community as a whole.
> > >
> > > This might often seem like it is "nit-picking", it's just a language
> > > thing in most cases, especially when those doing the work have the
> > > full (silent) support of the community as a whole. However, if there
> > > is ever a time that the people doing the work appear to be heading in
> > > the wrong direction the flat structure of an Apache project becomes
> > > extremely important. For this reason language is very important.
> > >
> > > Ross
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:45 AM
> > > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro <
> > > terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
> > > >...
> > >
> > > > the discretion of our
> > > > (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion Ross
> > > > and fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
> > > >
> > >
> > > We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
> > >
> > > Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community, but
> > > will pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you. I can
> > > help with describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
> > >
> > > Happy New Years!
> > > -g
> > >
> >
>
Re: Jira Workflow
Posted by Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org>.
Just a little corrective to your perception of my intention: I did not
raise this concern as a defense to my voting suggestion.
Greets,
Myrle
*Myrle Krantz*
Solutions Architect
RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org
<http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Your observations are good ones. Cultural awareness is very important.
>
> The "trick" that I've found to work is to speak and act in a way that
> encourages participation. Take the time to send a few sentences indicating
> that *EVERYONE* has a voice here and that their voice is of equal weight to
> everyone elses.
>
> Voting is not a mechanism that brings consensus. As others have said it
> creates divides. There are winners and losers. Furthermore, if the only
> person who sees the inherent flaw in the proposal is someone without a
> binding vote how can they make a difference in a vote in which their vote
> doesn't count and even if it did it would be one against many.
>
> Better is to make it clear that anyone with a concern should raise it.
> Then ensure that concern is discussed and addressed to the satisfaction of
> the whole community.
>
> The way to make this happen is not to create rules about how decisions are
> made. It's to create a culture of sharing and respect. A culture in which
> listening and doing is more valuable than talking and defining. It's about
> accepting "good enough" is an excellent contribution while incremental
> improvements that take us from "good enough" to "even better" are equally
> valuable.
>
> You are absolutely correct to worry that this is more difficult in some
> cultures than in others. You should continue to do so. Call for specific
> input from the community as a whole. Ensure you leave space for people to
> contribute how *they* choose to do so. Basically actions within the
> community speak much loader than words in a policy or process document.
>
> With that in mind, does anyone here have a feeling for what the right
> balance is between process and policy for this community?
>
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Myrle Krantz [mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 2:48 PM
> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>
> I'm actually most concerned about this aspect of making this an Apache
> project.
>
> I can't find a fully politically correct way to say this, so to the extent
> that I'm replacing individuals with stereotypes, I apologize. I do know
> that people vary from their cultural norms. I don't know my fellow
> contributors very well. I'm asking this in full recognition of my
> ignorance, hoping that people who know more will correct me.
>
> Some of our contributors come from cultures with a low power distance and
> some come from cultures with a high power distance (US: 40/100, Germany:
> 35/100, Netherlands: 38/100, India 77/100)+.
>
> The Apache approach seems to assume that all participants view themselves
> as equal, or at least have a realistic view of how their personal merit
> allows them to contribute to a discussion. But it is possible that those
> contributors who come from a high-power-distance culture, might allow
> themselves to be cut out of a discussion by a gradient of power. Indeed, I
> haven't seen many objections coming from our Indian colleagues to what
> we've been suggesting. Even though they are more likely to have a
> customer-contact informed opinion.
>
> From my American perspective, I believe we need to find a way to encourage
> more active participation in these cases. At the same time based on my
> reading, I'm not sure that colleagues who come from a high-power-distance
> culture even want a level playing field. I'm pretty sure it is not
> possible to impose a level-playing field if it's unwanted.
>
> So the questions are:
>
> * Is this even true? Are our Indian colleagues (or anyone else)
> withholding important reservations? (My source could just be wrong.)
> * Is this really going to be a problem?
> * Is there a way to solve this? Or at least ameliorate it?
>
>
> Happy New Year from Germany,
> Myrle Krantz
>
>
> + Source "Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind" Geert
> + Hofstede
> and Gert Jan Hofstede pages 43-44
>
>
> *Myrle Krantz*
> Solutions Architect
> RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
> mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BE%2fKBTIg2NNgLVwATGg5zMrFWB77RqCPpqX%2bGMU%2bK5c%3d
> |
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H8V6JqQ3H3zB9F73A8726jutKqQVHDvI3IUnW195s2s%3d
> <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ffacebook.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=9dvCR8tKj53N0m8q7b13A8yA3l0z8V6M59jLkZH0Wy4%3d>
> <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.twitter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Oxxo2M8RnRRF4iuW66z0kui0GunjG3bzntXZ0KsCmOI%3d
> >
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 - no leaders around here, just people doing the work. An ASF
> > +project is
> > "led" by whoever is active, that means lots of leaders at any one time.
> > Those "leaders" are always answerable to the community as a whole.
> >
> > This might often seem like it is "nit-picking", it's just a language
> > thing in most cases, especially when those doing the work have the
> > full (silent) support of the community as a whole. However, if there
> > is ever a time that the people doing the work appear to be heading in
> > the wrong direction the flat structure of an Apache project becomes
> > extremely important. For this reason language is very important.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:45 AM
> > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro <
> > terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
> > >...
> >
> > > the discretion of our
> > > (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion Ross
> > > and fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
> > >
> >
> > We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
> >
> > Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community, but
> > will pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you. I can
> > help with describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
> >
> > Happy New Years!
> > -g
> >
>
RE: Jira Workflow
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Your observations are good ones. Cultural awareness is very important.
The "trick" that I've found to work is to speak and act in a way that encourages participation. Take the time to send a few sentences indicating that *EVERYONE* has a voice here and that their voice is of equal weight to everyone elses.
Voting is not a mechanism that brings consensus. As others have said it creates divides. There are winners and losers. Furthermore, if the only person who sees the inherent flaw in the proposal is someone without a binding vote how can they make a difference in a vote in which their vote doesn't count and even if it did it would be one against many.
Better is to make it clear that anyone with a concern should raise it. Then ensure that concern is discussed and addressed to the satisfaction of the whole community.
The way to make this happen is not to create rules about how decisions are made. It's to create a culture of sharing and respect. A culture in which listening and doing is more valuable than talking and defining. It's about accepting "good enough" is an excellent contribution while incremental improvements that take us from "good enough" to "even better" are equally valuable.
You are absolutely correct to worry that this is more difficult in some cultures than in others. You should continue to do so. Call for specific input from the community as a whole. Ensure you leave space for people to contribute how *they* choose to do so. Basically actions within the community speak much loader than words in a policy or process document.
With that in mind, does anyone here have a feeling for what the right balance is between process and policy for this community?
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: Myrle Krantz [mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org]
Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 2:48 PM
To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
I'm actually most concerned about this aspect of making this an Apache project.
I can't find a fully politically correct way to say this, so to the extent that I'm replacing individuals with stereotypes, I apologize. I do know that people vary from their cultural norms. I don't know my fellow contributors very well. I'm asking this in full recognition of my ignorance, hoping that people who know more will correct me.
Some of our contributors come from cultures with a low power distance and some come from cultures with a high power distance (US: 40/100, Germany:
35/100, Netherlands: 38/100, India 77/100)+.
The Apache approach seems to assume that all participants view themselves as equal, or at least have a realistic view of how their personal merit allows them to contribute to a discussion. But it is possible that those contributors who come from a high-power-distance culture, might allow themselves to be cut out of a discussion by a gradient of power. Indeed, I haven't seen many objections coming from our Indian colleagues to what we've been suggesting. Even though they are more likely to have a customer-contact informed opinion.
From my American perspective, I believe we need to find a way to encourage more active participation in these cases. At the same time based on my reading, I'm not sure that colleagues who come from a high-power-distance culture even want a level playing field. I'm pretty sure it is not possible to impose a level-playing field if it's unwanted.
So the questions are:
* Is this even true? Are our Indian colleagues (or anyone else) withholding important reservations? (My source could just be wrong.)
* Is this really going to be a problem?
* Is there a way to solve this? Or at least ameliorate it?
Happy New Year from Germany,
Myrle Krantz
+ Source "Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind" Geert
+ Hofstede
and Gert Jan Hofstede pages 43-44
*Myrle Krantz*
Solutions Architect
RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BE%2fKBTIg2NNgLVwATGg5zMrFWB77RqCPpqX%2bGMU%2bK5c%3d | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H8V6JqQ3H3zB9F73A8726jutKqQVHDvI3IUnW195s2s%3d
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ffacebook.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=9dvCR8tKj53N0m8q7b13A8yA3l0z8V6M59jLkZH0Wy4%3d> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.twitter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9ed96061934f43c39c4108d312ba93b5%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Oxxo2M8RnRRF4iuW66z0kui0GunjG3bzntXZ0KsCmOI%3d>
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> +1 - no leaders around here, just people doing the work. An ASF
> +project is
> "led" by whoever is active, that means lots of leaders at any one time.
> Those "leaders" are always answerable to the community as a whole.
>
> This might often seem like it is "nit-picking", it's just a language
> thing in most cases, especially when those doing the work have the
> full (silent) support of the community as a whole. However, if there
> is ever a time that the people doing the work appear to be heading in
> the wrong direction the flat structure of an Apache project becomes
> extremely important. For this reason language is very important.
>
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:45 AM
> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro <
> terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
> >...
>
> > the discretion of our
> > (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion Ross
> > and fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
> >
>
> We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
>
> Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community, but
> will pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you. I can
> help with describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
>
> Happy New Years!
> -g
>
Re: Jira Workflow
Posted by Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org>.
I'm actually most concerned about this aspect of making this an Apache
project.
I can't find a fully politically correct way to say this, so to the extent
that I'm replacing individuals with stereotypes, I apologize. I do know
that people vary from their cultural norms. I don't know my fellow
contributors very well. I'm asking this in full recognition of my
ignorance, hoping that people who know more will correct me.
Some of our contributors come from cultures with a low power distance and
some come from cultures with a high power distance (US: 40/100, Germany:
35/100, Netherlands: 38/100, India 77/100)+.
The Apache approach seems to assume that all participants view themselves
as equal, or at least have a realistic view of how their personal merit
allows them to contribute to a discussion. But it is possible that those
contributors who come from a high-power-distance culture, might allow
themselves to be cut out of a discussion by a gradient of power. Indeed, I
haven't seen many objections coming from our Indian colleagues to what
we've been suggesting. Even though they are more likely to have a
customer-contact informed opinion.
>From my American perspective, I believe we need to find a way to encourage
more active participation in these cases. At the same time based on my
reading, I'm not sure that colleagues who come from a high-power-distance
culture even want a level playing field. I'm pretty sure it is not
possible to impose a level-playing field if it's unwanted.
So the questions are:
* Is this even true? Are our Indian colleagues (or anyone else) withholding
important reservations? (My source could just be wrong.)
* Is this really going to be a problem?
* Is there a way to solve this? Or at least ameliorate it?
Happy New Year from Germany,
Myrle Krantz
+ Source "Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind" Geert Hofstede
and Gert Jan Hofstede pages 43-44
*Myrle Krantz*
Solutions Architect
RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org
<http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> +1 - no leaders around here, just people doing the work. An ASF project is
> "led" by whoever is active, that means lots of leaders at any one time.
> Those "leaders" are always answerable to the community as a whole.
>
> This might often seem like it is "nit-picking", it's just a language thing
> in most cases, especially when those doing the work have the full (silent)
> support of the community as a whole. However, if there is ever a time that
> the people doing the work appear to be heading in the wrong direction the
> flat structure of an Apache project becomes extremely important. For this
> reason language is very important.
>
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:45 AM
> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro <
> terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
> >...
>
> > the discretion of our
> > (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion Ross
> > and fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
> >
>
> We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
>
> Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community, but will
> pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you. I can help with
> describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
>
> Happy New Years!
> -g
>
RE: Jira Workflow
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
+1 - no leaders around here, just people doing the work. An ASF project is "led" by whoever is active, that means lots of leaders at any one time. Those "leaders" are always answerable to the community as a whole.
This might often seem like it is "nit-picking", it's just a language thing in most cases, especially when those doing the work have the full (silent) support of the community as a whole. However, if there is ever a time that the people doing the work appear to be heading in the wrong direction the flat structure of an Apache project becomes extremely important. For this reason language is very important.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:45 AM
To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Jira Workflow
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro < terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
>...
> the discretion of our
> (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion Ross
> and fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
>
We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community, but will pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you. I can help with describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
Happy New Years!
-g
Re: Jira Workflow
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Happy New Year!!
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:59 AM, <ma...@live.de> wrote:
>
>
> Hey all,
>
>
> happy new year!
>
>
> I simply volunteered some of my time to kickstart our initiative to become
> an Apache project.
>
>
> I don't consider myself as 'El Capitan', or any special role at all. I'm
> part if this community, extremely excited, and happy that we have this
> opportunity for Mifos.
>
>
> If it seemed like I'm 'leading' I do apologize this wasn't and isn't my
> intention. I just really want to see our project grow and bloom to help
> make this world a better place for all of us.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Markus
>
>
> .:: YAGNI likes a DRY KISS ::.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 7:45 PM -0800, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro <
> terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
> >...
>
> > the discretion of our
> > (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion Ross and
> > fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
> >
>
> We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
>
> Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community, but will
> pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you. I can help with
> describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
>
> Happy New Years!
> -g
>
Re: Jira Workflow
Posted by ma...@live.de.
Hey all,
happy new year!
I simply volunteered some of my time to kickstart our initiative to become an Apache project.
I don't consider myself as 'El Capitan', or any special role at all. I'm part if this community, extremely excited, and happy that we have this opportunity for Mifos.
If it seemed like I'm 'leading' I do apologize this wasn't and isn't my intention. I just really want to see our project grow and bloom to help make this world a better place for all of us.
Best,
Markus
.:: YAGNI likes a DRY KISS ::.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 7:45 PM -0800, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro <
terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
>...
> the discretion of our
> (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion Ross and
> fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
>
We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community, but will
pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you. I can help with
describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
Happy New Years!
-g
Re: Jira Workflow
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Terence Monteiro <
terence@sanjosesolutions.in> wrote:
>...
> the discretion of our
> (El Capitan) Markus and the consent of our benevolent champion Ross and
> fellow Mentors, start the year in earnest. What say?
>
We are all peers. No Capitan, no Champion, no Mentors.
Speaking for myself, I won't be a *participant* in the community, but will
pop in as a guide. Decisions are best made by all of you. I can help with
describing mechanisms and process (or how to avoid that!).
Happy New Years!
-g