[OLPC-Philippines] division_of_labor

[Mel Chua]

Replying to this on-list, so others can join the conversation.

Sandeep C. wrote:
> Hi-
> 
> This is good Cherry.
> 
> Just thinking aloud...please bear with me.
> 
> In my prior work environment, we finally ended up with five key org pillars:
> 1) General and Administrative - Finance, Operations
> 2) Legal
> 3) HC -- People + Brand Mgt
> 4) Products and Technology -- 2 in a box approach --> Product GM + Eng 
> Head responsible for corresponding product segments
> 5) Sales and Services-- sales, field marketing and revenue-generating 
> consulting&training
> 
> Ownership of the community (fedora, linux users, Jboss.org) managers  
> kept on moving over the past 10 years until it finally ended up with the 
> General Counsel (Legal). Not sure why...
> 
> 
> If we apply this to our scenario, we could rename the teams as follows:
> 
> General and Administrative -- Finance, Operations - Sandeep and Ryan
> Products and Technology - Engineering/Development - Jerome and Harv (see 
> below)
> Marketing - Cherry
> 
> 
> The Academe is quite important as a branch but I have a nagging feeling 
> that it should be part of the Products and Technology group. This will 
> allow a more market-driven approach -- ie the academic 'expert' works 
> within the team to define the 'product requirements.' Keeps development 
> focused on the needs of the customers.
> 

First let me say I'm only concerned about defining 'teams' inasmuch as 
it's just another way (but a good one) for us to tell each other what we 
already want to work on. Interests of individuals should determine 
teams, rather than setting up an arbitrary structure and then trying to 
put people into it. That having been said, it looks like this is what is 
happening already. So. Yay!

> Now the question about "Community." Do we define "community" as the 
> ecosystem of developers, pilot projects, our organization, OLPC Main?

Yes, and more. Users /and/ contributors (the two groups hopefully will 
overlap a lot!) are both part of the community. And contributors are 
more than just developers! Writers, lawyers, parents, artists, students, 
teachers, translators, marketers, sysadmins... there are a lot of ways 
to contribute, because what we're building isn't a *technology*; it's an 
*ecosystem.* It's a new way for an entire world - the world of learning 
- to operate. The borders of the word "community" are somewhat fluid, 
but if they participate in some way towards our mission, they're in. 
That's my current thinking, at least (in no small part influenced by the 
Fedora folks, mind you).

> do we limit "Community" to technical developers?

No, for the reasons explained above.

> Mel: I would think that you're the "Community Manager." Defining 
> community would allow us to better understand each other's scope. And 
> also understand whether this is separate from the 3 other groups or part 
> of P&T.

First of all, you're correct that this is the type of role I'd like to 
work within. (I /can/ write code and make computers work - and I will, 
if that's what it takes - but I find myself to be much more effective 
this way.)

I would rephrase that - I think of myself as a community engineer, since 
I take "manager" to imply that I'm "in charge" of something. Community 
gardener might actually be more accurate; I try to monitor the ecosystem 
of contributors and keep it flourishing. I also try hard not to be the 
only gardener of this sort - many hands make light work, and I love it 
when someone else solves a problem that I'm working on; it means I don't 
have to. ;)

http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/User:Mchua#Interests has an explanation of 
how I describe the things I do within Sugar Labs.

"I'm a community engineer. That means I'm something of a 
jack-of-all-trades - my primary interest is in making it easier for 
contributors (or potential contributors) to Sugar Labs to do what they 
want to do, and to keep radical transparency going throughout the 
project so that the efforts of individual volunteers are all aimed 
towards furthering the mission and vision of Sugar Labs as a whole as 
well. Basically, I try to nurture leaders into and within the community, 
get them to work interdependently with each other, and sledgehammer junk 
out of their way so they can do Real Work. Or in other words, I ask 
these questions all the time:

    1. What do you want to do?
    2. Why aren't you doing it (or what stops you from doing it better)?
    3. Why don't you and others know (or know more) about the exact 
impact that you're having on how children learn?

My background is in engineering, so I'll often tackle things through 
technical tools and the people who want to work on them, and use 
software-based analogies and processes to get things done. I'm a student 
of education (and learning) as well as business operations - I'm by no 
means fluent in those two domains yet, but I'm trying hard to become 
equally comfortable working within and with them. Help and feedback is 
always incredibly appreciated."

> Hope this makes sense:)

Same here! Does this help to clarify "community" somewhat? This is by no 
means a gospel answer, it's just my current take, so if people have 
alternate conceptions, I would love to hear them.

--Mel