On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:41:20PM -0500, Hugh Brock wrote:
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 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 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.
> 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. 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.
>
> How do you guys feel about this idea?
> Would you be willing to give up some control for clear direction?
I like this idea and I agree we have probably grown to the point that
it's necessary.
How would you propose we choose team leads, and do you envision a way of
rotating the position or do you think it should be permanent (at least
until the lead gets tired of it or decides to go do something else)?
For what it's worth, I've asked about the OpenStack model for this, and
it is:
* Each project has a group of core contributors who have commit rights
for that project. Core contributors can vote to accept other folks as
core.
* Each project has a yearly vote among the core contributors to choose a
project technical lead for the project.
Fairly simple. In our case of course everyone on a project is core,
we're not so big that we have people sending patches who don't have
commit rights. Hopefully that will happen at some point.
Thoughts on this?
--Hugh
--
== Hugh Brock, hbrock(a)redhat.com ==
== Engineering Manager, Cloud BU ==
== Aeolus Project: Manage virtual infrastructure across clouds. ==
==
http://aeolusproject.org ==
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
--Robert McCloskey