Aeolus Team Leads

Matt Wagner matt.wagner at redhat.com
Fri Jan 11 21:07:56 UTC 2013


On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 05:56:18PM +0000, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> I want to reiterate here, that I think debate is a good thing.  It is
> a healthy process, as a result of debate we gain a better
> understanding of the problem domain and as such can make better
> decisions on design and approach.  However, I do feel that quite
> regularly we struggle to meet consensus and when consensus is
> eventually reached it's easily toppled.  

I've noticed the phenomenon of us struggling to reach consensus. (It's a
silly example, but look at any of our discussions on what to name
things.)

I sort of feel like the fix might be to just call out the problem as
we're doing here. It seems like we could just make a more concerted
effort to try to work towards consensus and accept that some choice is
often better than no choice.

I still think that the best way to reinforce consensus is to make sure
we're not trying to force it before it's ready, and to clearly
communicate when it's reached. I'm not sure many people would try to
undermine consensus unless they either didn't know one had been reached,
or felt very strongly that the wrong decision was made.


> When I proposed a team lead
> here, the intention is not to demotivate team members, to push my own
> agenda or to remove people form the right to their say.  But rather a
> request to add in decisiveness to our process.  Maybe, it would
> lessen the blow if I were to suggest Mike or Angus to be the Team
> Leads here?

I think they'd both be more than qualified, but I think the net effect of
this is the same as asking RH managers to get more involved in trying to
force consensus on discussions upstream, which sounds very scary.

My disagreement with the idea here isn't a question of _who_ the team
leads are, as much as that I think they're being created to serve a
function that we don't need, and that is (IMHO) potentially harmful. We
want someone to help gently guide us to a consensus, not someone with
the power to issue a decree.

> >Also, I think there have been new points made about the
> >callback/polling/jobs issue yesterday, so I don't think of the
> >discussion as a lost time.
> >
> >To address the issue of having team leads, I see three main parts
> >to team decision making:
> >
> >1) Is the decision right?
> >
> >2) Does it have support among the team members?
> >
> >3) Was the decision fast?
> >
> >I believe that picking a team lead could help point 3, but it could
> >also hurt 1 and 2. I believe that joint opinions usually produce
> >better results than individuals, even if the individuals are
> >experts. Also, if a team member has to accept a decision they don't
> >agree with, it's easier to do so when the decision is reached by
> >discussion and backed by multiple people rather than backed by a
> >team lead.
> Even when we make decisions via coming to a consensus across the
> community.  I do feel that not all people support the decision and
> often people lose interest/energy in the topic and simply decide to
> give in for the sake of their sanity.  This actually hurts your
> points 1 and 2 above.  I feel having a team lead in this situation
> would actually result in a more supported decision across the team as
> all opinions are heard and since the topic is not left to go on and
> on people will not lose their heart.

What you're proposing almost sounds like a "moderator" of the
discussion -- someone to ensure "all opinions are heard" and that "the
topic is not left to go on and on." I could get behind that. (And it's
somewhat like my earlier comments about us wanting a 'catalyst,' not
someone who leads through authority.)

> If the community comes to a decision rapidly and its acted upon in a
> reasonable time frame.  I see no reason why the tech lead would need
> to intervene.  It is only in the situations I have described above
> which are not solved in a timely manner when I believe intervention
> needs to be taken.

I think it would be interesting if someone would try to play the role of
a gentle moderator here next time this comes up, to try to shepherd the
discussion along without asserting any authority.

I think a heavy-handed, "Since I'm in charge and this discussion has
gone on too long, I decree that we're doing $x" would be disastrous and
lead to people either (a) ignoring the leader making such decrees, or
(b) going along reluctantly even if they think it's the wrong direction.
But I think that someone participating in the conversation trying to
gently push people towards a consensus would be a very good thing, both
in terms of morale and in terms of making sure the right decision is
made and widely supported.

I'm not sure that needs to be one person's job, though. In fact, I would
argue that we should try to make that _everyone's_ job.

> >To sum it up, I do not oppose the idea of having a team lead per
> >each Aeolus subproject and having Tech Cabal for cross-project
> >issues. I think having team leads might be useful, but I view team
> >leads as a double-bladed axe, not a silver bullet. When trying to
> >speed up decisions and cut down on (frustrating) discussions, the
> >team leads would have to be extra careful not to demotivate team
> >members (hurt points 1 and 2 I wrote above). I believe a good team
> >lead should explain decisions and address concerns, so imho chances
> >are that in the end the situation about decisions and discussions
> >wouldn't be much different from what we have now. However, it's
> >still good if someone can moderate and push things forward,
> >something like an Awesome at a cabal.
> 
> I understand you concerns.  Demotivating people is the last thing I
> want to happen.  I don't believe that people should be silenced by
> some overlord.  I see the team lead as a arbitrator for when debate
> on issues goes on longer than a reasonable time frame.

I think I agree with you on the problem, but not on the solution. I
certainly don't mean to suggest that you're intending a solution to
demotivate people or implement overlords; I just worry about how it
could play out. I'm interested in the 'arbitrator' idea here, but not
the aspect of a 'lead' that has decision-making authority. When there
isn't a clear consensus, I think there's an underlying reason that needs
to be resolved.

-- Matt


More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list