On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 22:31, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is how we've always done it so far and it has been working well. At >> least most people I know think that this is better than most other >> alternatives, including ad-hoc decision making plans. >> > > I'm not sure I'd say it's been working well - it took a lot of time, a lot > of volunteers and dragging some folks along in the end anyway. I think > there's a lot of merit in having a more structured (honestly: faster) > decision making process. We often end up in choice/analysis paralysis - > where it's easier to object than to address objections, which is tiring for > those trying to make change & slows down things quite a bit. > Right, "working well" can mean multiple things... :) Most people I spoke about this over the years think that it's still better than other models, like "benevolent" dictator, "meritocratic" authority, diverse types of voting systems, elected "officials", etc. There are plenty of big projects that follow those models and ours seems to be the most inclusive and open to diversity, but not the most efficient. I think that side of our community still attracts a lot of people from all over the world and is an identifying trait. Personally, I prefer to be in the diverse end of the spectrum than on the efficient end, mostly because the efficient ones tend to be autocratic in nature. But this is mostly on the technical but not code decisions. Code decisions I think we can be pretty efficient. cheers, --renato
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
