Aeolus Team Leads

Jiří Stránský jistr at redhat.com
Mon Jan 14 11:48:13 UTC 2013


On 11.1.2013 22:07, Matt Wagner wrote:
> 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
>

+1 on the whole e-mail, I share Matt's view here.

J.


More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list