OpenSource: Difference between revisions
From charlesreid1
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
{{Quote| | {{Quote| | ||
An "open mic" doesn't mean you'll hear from all voices, or even the most insightful ones. People need to feel safe. | An "open mic" doesn't mean you'll hear from all voices, or even the most insightful ones. People need to feel safe. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 20:50, 8 June 2016
Article on avoiding "Brandy McBrandface," and how to accomplish inclusiveness and openness in an organization without f****ing it up: https://opensource.com/open-organization/16/6/open-brand-journey-can-help-you-avoid-brandymcbrandface
Clearly, the "Boaty McBoatface" situation of the British National Environment Research Council is an example.
Probably the biggest mistake we see organizations make when setting up open, collaborative projects (and one of the biggest reasons executives give for not employing more open practices) is that they mistakenly assume that an open project has to be managed as a democracy.
The suggestion, instead, is not to give people the option to vote on a final product (like, uh, picking a President). Instead, ask for their input at the beginning of the entire process, ask questions about what they see, what they want, what defines success, how to achieve it. The key is to give people the ability to provide inspiration and input, but not make any final decisions.
The meritocracy comes in when it is time to synthesize the input into a final product. The people making the decision should be experienced professionals. Credit should be given where credit is due.
An "open mic" doesn't mean you'll hear from all voices, or even the most insightful ones. People need to feel safe.
{{{1}}}
{{{1}}}