It was suggested elsewhere I am against any "core team" plan. This is entirely false.

As an *EXAMPLE* (I have not spoken to either of the poor saps below), a team similar to that would get several +1's from me:

If the number "5" is magical in some way, and diluting responsibility further is desirable: destabilize it a bit more, e.g.

As a community you seem to want prioritization of stability. Then why aren't you clamoring for a team that *mostly* leans towards stability *naturally*? I do not understand why settle for an illusion of a working group fully controlled by someone who demonstrably optimizes, and went on record intending to continue optimizing for progress for the sake of progress.

Searchable Archive:

Reply via email to