On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:32:48PM +0000, Martyn Taylor wrote: > Gents, > > We are stuck in a pattern where, after hours/days of frustrating debate, we > create > delicate balances of agreement on topics only to have our consensus break > when a new point of view is interjected or another conversation > takes place.
I'm not familiar with the specific example that I assume led to this discussion, but it kind of feels to me like if this is happening, it means that either (a) people don't know that a consensus was reached, or (b) people think they were left out of the decision-making and feel that the consensus overlooked something important. So I feel (in the abstract -- again, without being aware of a specific example) like the real solution is better communication -- "Here's what we decided as a group, and here's why." > I really think it is time to add some layer of > leadership to the team. Our team is simply too large to act as a > democracy. I think team leads might be a good idea, but not for the reasons proposed. A team lead should be part of a "democracy" (or at least a meritocracy), basing everything they do on input from the rest of the team, IMHO. Personally, I would have a lot more respect for decisions that were a community consensus than one that was "because $leader said so." > I realise that the Tech Cabal is an attempt to address the > aforementioned problems, but I do not feel that adding another sub-democracy > can help us in this issue. The Cabal has its advantages > when trying to solve integration/cross project problems, but I don't > think it helps us steer individual projects. I really think we need > technical leads that have the power to make decisions, or at the very least to > decide when debate is closed and carry forward ideas that have been agreed > upon. Team leads for each project make a lot of sense to me. Team leads that "have the power to make decisions" scare me, though it might just be a semantic difference. I want team leads that are "servants of the people" and just act as a coordinator to keep everyone rowing in the same direction based on the team's input, and as a liaison to other teams. I don't want a team lead that governs based on his or her own notion of what we should be doing. Almost a "community secretary" versus a leader. > This is how the majority of projects both inside and outside of RedHat > operate. > I'm not sure why we do not have this in Aeolus, but I'd be much > happier in my position if I had some clear direction on approach, > whether I agreed with that approach or not. This would certainly be a good thing, but it again strikes me as a communications issue more than a leadership vacuum. > Let me be clear and say > I don't expect Team Leads to simply make all and every decision > alone and dictate to the rest of the team. Rather, we need someone who > listens to all points of view and makes a decision and takes > responsibility for it. +1, though even better IMHO would be "...someone who listens to all points of view and lets the community make a decision, except where it's helplessly indecisive." IMHO, a really great leader would just be a catalyst that helps discussions move along, without needing to appeal to authority. > How do you guys feel about this idea? > Would you be willing to give up some control for clear direction? I'd be reluctant, but not entirely resistant. -- Matt
