1 |
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Nathan wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
[snip] |
4 |
> Assuming (again-sorry, where are those docs?) that a Gentoo lead |
5 |
> consists of mostly extra responsibilities, and not of extra sticks to |
6 |
> beat people with, being a lead tends to be more of a 'character building |
7 |
> chore' for the lead than anything else. |
8 |
|
9 |
Yes, in an ideal world, a lead would not have to exercise powers that |
10 |
no-one else in the team posessed. But in reality, one doesn't elect leads |
11 |
by drawing straws to pick a random unfortunate who will merely carry the |
12 |
burden of extra responsibilities. So why elect a lead? |
13 |
|
14 |
In my opinion, the most effective (and innovative) open source projects |
15 |
are run by an (inspired) dictator, and the least effective are run by |
16 |
committee or by a loose group of random volunteers, each one with a |
17 |
different "itch to scratch". |
18 |
|
19 |
[snip] |
20 |
> Do you really think Hasan and/or Lina are going to turn into earless |
21 |
> monsters if they jointly become 'the lead'? |
22 |
|
23 |
The problem here is that gentoo-osx lacks a coherent shared goal*, and |
24 |
electing a lead isn't going to help much unless it can provide that. |
25 |
Electing two leads is, in general, worse than electing one when it is a |
26 |
coherent vision that is missing. It is like having a committee of 2. |
27 |
|
28 |
-f |
29 |
|
30 |
* And I confess that I have helped muddy the water on that score. |
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |