Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Finn Thain <fthain@××××××××××××××××.au>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] Arch Testing Policy and Procedures
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 04:57:52
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.63.0509071440210.22106@loopy.telegraphics.com.au
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] Arch Testing Policy and Procedures by Nathan
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Nathan wrote:

[snip]
> Assuming (again-sorry, where are those docs?) that a Gentoo lead > consists of mostly extra responsibilities, and not of extra sticks to > beat people with, being a lead tends to be more of a 'character building > chore' for the lead than anything else.
Yes, in an ideal world, a lead would not have to exercise powers that no-one else in the team posessed. But in reality, one doesn't elect leads by drawing straws to pick a random unfortunate who will merely carry the burden of extra responsibilities. So why elect a lead? In my opinion, the most effective (and innovative) open source projects are run by an (inspired) dictator, and the least effective are run by committee or by a loose group of random volunteers, each one with a different "itch to scratch". [snip]
> Do you really think Hasan and/or Lina are going to turn into earless > monsters if they jointly become 'the lead'?
The problem here is that gentoo-osx lacks a coherent shared goal*, and electing a lead isn't going to help much unless it can provide that. Electing two leads is, in general, worse than electing one when it is a coherent vision that is missing. It is like having a committee of 2. -f * And I confess that I have helped muddy the water on that score. -- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] Arch Testing Policy and Procedures Grobian <grobian@g.o>