Aeolus Team Leads

Martyn Taylor mtaylor at redhat.com
Wed Jan 9 20:13:31 UTC 2013


On 01/09/2013 07:54 PM, Hugh Brock wrote:
> 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,

This is perfect!




More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list