Status of provisional meta team

(Akshay) #1

[Cross-post from ]

It’s been 40+ days after the meetup and it’s about time to think if all is

Apart from this repository and two conference calls with spare attendance,
I’m not sure the provisional meta team has been able to produce any
tangible output.

Is it time to reconsider membership of provisional meta team? Should we
recruit more active members?

Should we drop the entire idea of provisional meta team? Should we directly
form a meta team the way other teams are forming?

Should we forget about the meetup and restructure and let things continue
as they are?

(Akshit Sharma) #2

Just correcting the github’s issue url typo

(Kaustav Das Modak) #3

Given the apparent silence over this thread (and the ones before this), I want to highlight two major points that I think need addressing. These are somewhat cultural, somewhat personal and somewhat related to the community-at-large.

1. Almost everyone is keeping shut.

They are either keeping their opinions to themselves or waiting for someone else to jump in and solve the current issues. The problem here is that barring a few of the active voices, we haven’t publicly heard many opinions. This could mean either this process is not something that people are interested in, or solving the issue of scaling the community in a flexible model is not appealing enough to them, or they are concerned about voicing their ideas publicly. Neither of these situations are conducive for a large community to operate cohesively. We have tried to create as much open forum as possible and we encourage everyone to contribute to this process. That being said, there could be other reasons behind this lack of activity.

If you think that there are other, more qualified people to take lead, you may be losing the opportunity to take up ownership yourself and drive the conversation forward. After all, all of us are trying to do something here. It will only get better when we have more brains. So, if you have any thoughts, voice them. Don’t wait for others to do it for you, because they may not see things from your perspective.

We need brain storms. Like crazy typhoons, but made of intellect.

2. We could be trying to solve a non-existent problem

Let’s face it. One reason why not many people would be interested in this process is probably that we are trying to solve a problem which people don’t even perceive or are not bothered about. Probably, drawing the attention away from the fragmentation caused by a rigid, hyper-local structure and implementing a fluid, enabling system was not needed in the first place. Probably, the way things were working were good enough?

The interesting part, as well as the irony, here is that we have been proposing a process which in turn removes excessive processes from our operations. It is like, people were bothered about climate changes and were building small safe-houses, and we made a way to fix the climate and now they don’t to be cramped up in small houses any more. But, what if, the people were happy with their small safe-houses and were way more content? Do we really want to tell them that they don’t need their safe-houses any more? See the pattern?


(Kaustav Das Modak) #4

Yikes, this thread has split off due to mailing list mangling. Part of the thread is here.