| 1 |
On 10/13/2016 11:33 AM, Matthias Maier wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>> I'm not sure it's drastic to change our metastructure this way as much |
| 4 |
>> as people seem to think. It would be bringing it in line with the real |
| 5 |
>> world, as mentioned elsewhere, the two headed beast that we are works |
| 6 |
>> only if the two heads are very friendly. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> This doesn't make any sense. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Our current metastructure has worked for years. I have yet to see any |
| 11 |
> evidence that it is not working any longer. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Further, the collateral damage done by changing the project structure |
| 14 |
> now must not be underestimated. People tend to feel strongly about such |
| 15 |
> changes. It might far outweigh any perceived benefits. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> And last, quite a number of (community driven) projects clearly |
| 18 |
> distinguish between a lead/group for legalese and financial matters and |
| 19 |
> a technical/community leadership. We are no exception here. So why |
| 20 |
> should we change it? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Best, |
| 23 |
> Matthias |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The current problem (that this attempts to solve) is that the technical |
| 27 |
leadership is doing things it should not be responsible for (primarily |
| 28 |
comrel) but also pr and possibly infra. I don't see the metastructure |
| 29 |
changing except for moving these groups. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
As far as our current metastructure being good enough, it might have |
| 32 |
worked in the past and it might work in the future but I think the |
| 33 |
change is necessary to work better in the future. The argument you |
| 34 |
stated as 'It might far outweigh any perceived benefits.' is possible |
| 35 |
(which is part of why it's being discussed) but I disagree, I think the |
| 36 |
future benefits outweigh the current pain. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives