On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:32:48PM +0000, Martyn Taylor wrote:
Gents,
We are stuck in a pattern where, after hours/days of frustrating debate, we create
delicate balances of agreement on topics only to have our consensus break
when a new point of view is interjected or another conversation
takes place.
I'm not familiar with the specific example that I assume led to this
discussion, but it kind of feels to me like if this is happening, it
means that either (a) people don't know that a consensus was reached, or
(b) people think they were left out of the decision-making and feel that
the consensus overlooked something important.
So I feel (in the abstract -- again, without being aware of a specific
example) like the real solution is better communication -- "Here's what
we decided as a group, and here's why."
I really think it is time to add some layer of
leadership to the team. Our team is simply too large to act as a
democracy.
I think team leads might be a good idea, but not for the reasons
proposed. A team lead should be part of a "democracy" (or at least a
meritocracy), basing everything they do on input from the rest of the
team, IMHO.
Personally, I would have a lot more respect for decisions that were a
community consensus than one that was "because $leader said so."
I realise that the Tech Cabal is an attempt to address the
aforementioned problems, but I do not feel that adding another sub-democracy
can help us in this issue. The Cabal has its advantages
when trying to solve integration/cross project problems, but I don't
think it helps us steer individual projects. I really think we need
technical leads that have the power to make decisions, or at the very least to
decide when debate is closed and carry forward ideas that have been agreed upon.
Team leads for each project make a lot of sense to me.
Team leads that "have the power to make decisions" scare me, though it
might just be a semantic difference.
I want team leads that are "servants of the people" and just act as a
coordinator
to keep everyone rowing in the same direction based on the team's input, and as a
liaison to other teams. I don't want a team lead that governs based on his or
her own notion of what we should be doing. Almost a "community
secretary" versus a leader.
This is how the majority of projects both inside and outside of
RedHat operate.
I'm not sure why we do not have this in Aeolus, but I'd be much
happier in my position if I had some clear direction on approach,
whether I agreed with that approach or not.
This would certainly be a good thing, but it again strikes me as a
communications issue more than a leadership vacuum.
Let me be clear and say
I don't expect Team Leads to simply make all and every decision
alone and dictate to the rest of the team. Rather, we need someone who
listens to all points of view and makes a decision and takes
responsibility for it.
+1, though even better IMHO would be "...someone who listens to all
points of view and lets the community make a decision, except where it's
helplessly indecisive."
IMHO, a really great leader would just be a catalyst that helps
discussions move along, without needing to appeal to authority.
How do you guys feel about this idea?
Would you be willing to give up some control for clear direction?
I'd be reluctant, but not entirely resistant.
-- Matt