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
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

Replies

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