This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz
by James Britt.
Original Post: Take me to your leader
Feed Title: James Britt: Ruby Development
Feed URL: http://feeds.feedburner.com/JamesBritt-Home
Feed Description: James Britt: Playing with better toys
I can understand wanting to keep the attendance restricted, to help boost the signal out of the noise. But I’m curious about the selection process. I was among a list of about eight people who got an E-mail invitation to the second session. Certainly there are more people in the Phoenix area whose input would be just or more valuable , and who are just as deserving as being on that CC list.
So, who are the “community leaders”? Why would you call them that? Who and what are they leading? Do we have community followers? Do the followers agree on who are the leaders?
I don’t see myself as leading anyone, and have no interest in doing so. I find the term “community leader” , um, misleading. Few people are doing any real leading. Me, I organize or instigate or simply help out. I may take the lead on this or that project, but I’m not leading any people, except maybe over to a free seat over in the back of a user group meeting.
What I try to do is give people a hand in leading themselves, if they are interested. From ruby-doc to rubyaz.org to the talks I’ve given and articles written, I’m much more interested in providing tools and resources than in telling anyone what to think or do.
Yes, I’m opinionated (like everyone else on the planet), but I seriously expect everyone to take everything I say with a good deal of skepticism. One reason for writing is for me to find out what I think, and hopefully get feedback to learn where I’m wrong.
Maybe I’m leading by example, but I don’t think that’s what is meant when labeling people as “community leaders”. It seems intended to declare a specific distinction among people, something of, for lack of a better term, a class distinction. Not to be all Marxist theoretical here, but the leader/follower distinction partitions people, and does not encourage useful gradations. It’s something like an orchestra; you are either the conductor or you’re not; you are either giving directions or taken them. Rarely does the first violinist swap places with the conductor; everyone has their assigned role and they stick with it.
I much prefer a jazz improve jam session approach. People are leaders for certain things at certain times. No one assumes that the leader at this moment will be be the leader later on. Each person not only believes they could lead, but is expected to do so by the others. Back when punk wasn’t total laughable bullshit, it was common for people to be the band one night, and in the audience the next. You were expected to participate; that was the whole point.
You are not on this Earth to be a spectator.
Certain distinctions are practical, and many of the people who get tagged “community leader” have some aspect worth noting. Often that aspect is having done something. Doing is important, and worth recognizing, but there are degrees of doing, whereas leading is pretty much an all or nothing behavior. Emphasizing a vague notion of “leading” isn’t useful. But people can do in varying degrees, with varying skills, and should be so encouraged.
Maybe a better term is “community doers.” Or just “doers.” It’s more objective, more open to participation, and presents a more valuable goal.
I’d rather see people doing than leading or following any day.
Previous Topic
