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