1 |
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:11:52 -0500 Lance Albertson |
2 |
<ramereth@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
| I partially agree that a strong council will help the situation, but |
4 |
| the problem with any leadership-by-committee model is the lack of |
5 |
| quick decisions. Many times things come up that need a quick |
6 |
| resolution (when I say quick, I mean within a few days). And if you |
7 |
| have a committee of 7 or so people that live in several different |
8 |
| timezones, its extremely hard to get them together to discuss it all. |
9 |
|
10 |
Mmm, afaics there's nothing preventing the council from having quick, |
11 |
'as needed' informal interim meetings with whoever happens to be around. |
12 |
If a few people aren't there, it's not as big a deal as if people don't |
13 |
show up to the monthly meetings. Heck, the monthly meetings could be |
14 |
considered a minimum... |
15 |
|
16 |
| The council has its merits, but it also has its weaknesses, this one |
17 |
| being one of them. I think I mentioned 6mo ago that we could keep the |
18 |
| council, but select one person to sort of be the "operational lead" |
19 |
| to make quick decisions so that development moves on. |
20 |
|
21 |
What happens if he or she (ok, he) isn't around? Is the flexibility of |
22 |
having a single "on the spot decision" leader enough to outweigh the |
23 |
disadvantages over allowing mini meetings? |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
27 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |