Aeolus Team Leads

Matt Wagner matt.wagner at redhat.com
Thu Jan 10 14:28:19 UTC 2013


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


More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list