1 |
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dane Smith <c1pher@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Perhaps do council appointments if the lead steps down / if the team |
3 |
> calls for a re-appointment (there would need to be rules for this part. |
4 |
> I don't want to see a new "appointee" merely because the lead upset one |
5 |
> person. Perhaps if more than 50% of the team or like 10 other developers |
6 |
> are asking for a new lead or some such foo.) |
7 |
> |
8 |
> ... |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Lastly, given that it will be the lead for a given team, I think that |
11 |
> team should have the ability to pick their "candidates" to go to |
12 |
> council, and maybe just give Council the vote on who gets it. Or, have |
13 |
> council appoint people they think are fit, and the team can vote from |
14 |
> there. Either way I think would work alright. |
15 |
|
16 |
I also dislike the general election idea, for the reasons you state. |
17 |
|
18 |
I think the ideal process is something like: |
19 |
|
20 |
1. Teams put forth recommendations for who THEY would like to see as |
21 |
the lead, perhaps with more than one choice. |
22 |
2. The Council is free to pick any lead they like, and change that |
23 |
lead any time they like. |
24 |
3. However, the Council is encouraged that unless there is a big |
25 |
reason not to do so, they just accept or choose from the team's |
26 |
nominations, and only do so annually. |
27 |
|
28 |
I don't like the concept of the council only getting to ratify a |
29 |
decision already made by the team. This will just lead to more |
30 |
bickering on the lists about the wrong people being on the team or |
31 |
whatever and the fox being in charge of the henhouse or whatever. |
32 |
|
33 |
The Council has a mandate, because they are elected. You can disagree |
34 |
with the Council, but you can't argue that their decisions don't have |
35 |
SOME kind of backing simply because they have been selected by the dev |
36 |
community as a whole. By giving the Council ultimate authority (and |
37 |
accountability) that mandate then is conferred upon the team leads for |
38 |
QA, Devrel, etc. |
39 |
|
40 |
This is not unlike how any business or similar concern is run. Teams |
41 |
usually know best how they should be run, but they still fall under |
42 |
the board or whatever and as long as they're doing a good job boards |
43 |
generally just rubber-stamp their recommendations. When things go |
44 |
wrong, then the board takes a more active role, even to the point of |
45 |
completely overriding the team if that is what it takes to fix things |
46 |
- but usually they just put somebody in charge that they feel will |
47 |
handle things. |
48 |
|
49 |
Government isn't a good example as it tends to be dominated by |
50 |
cronyism, and I think there is general agreement that this is NOT how |
51 |
we want things to work. The council should not generally fiddle with |
52 |
every little thing QA does, or whatever, but they can step in when the |
53 |
issue is serious. |
54 |
|
55 |
Rich |