Jon wrote:
> My opinion is that there are to many peers in the process and that is what
> is breaking Jakarta. This wasn't a problem until now. We are starting to
> explode under our own ever growing weight.
I've been involved in other organisations that tried, from best intentions,
to have a non hierarchical structure.
In the end, as they grew, they almost always either:
a) fade away as people get bored with endless discussion of procedure and
leave,
or
b) develop leadership structures which can make snap decisions and represent
the community externally
the problem with "a" is self evident, in the case of Jakarta I suspect this
would (is?) manifesting itself as increasing insularity of the sub-projects.
After all the software is still wanted, its the community that most users
and developers see as a cost or by-product of free stuff, most of us don't
have all that much time to spare on community issues, we also have project
related stuff, jobs, family, beer etc.
the problem with "b" is that it is a "sell out", by appointing leaders we
sacrifice a much loved principle, and ordinary members start asking "who the
hell do they think they are, to speak on my behalf?"
In my experience the best compromise is often to fragment the community,
have lots of small groups where concensus will get the job done, and hang
these together, but as this is pretty much what we have here already I find
myself asking the question; what role do the PMC members see for the PMC? Is
it simply a sub-project charged with developing communication/process
between sub-projects, or do you want to exert control and leadership over
the sub-projects?
d.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
