On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:11:29 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:06:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:52:20 +0200, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Regardless of what person is in charge, I think this person should > > > _only_ be in charge for evaluating what the consensus of the > > > developers is. > > > > You want a release manager who is a mere rubber stamp for a > > large group of people who can't ever agree on anything unless beating > > each other on the head with a GR? And you think this shall somehow > > result in the best OS in the world? What planet do you come from? > > Manoj, please explain to me how you can achieve the best OS in the > world, if part of the project refuse to communicate with other peoples, > and sometimes on things vital to the further progress of the project.
I think it is entirely possible to have someone as a release manager, ftp-master, or any other position of responsibility who is good at communicating and who nevertheless exhibits their own judgement and makes decisions independent of the consensus of the developers. Not being a rubber-stamp, not limiting the decision-making process to consensus evaluation, does not equate to refusal to communicate. My reaction to Robert's suggestion was similar to Manoj's -- that having an RM who is not allowed to make decisions, just evaluate consensus is a bad idea. Someone has to make the decision to ship or not to ship. To be effective, responsibility needs to be balanced with authority. Giving the RM the responsibility of managing releases, but removing the authority to make release decisions doesn't work. > > Friendly, > > Sven Luther > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
