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 Brock, [email protected] == == Engineering Manager, Cloud BU == == Aeolus Project: Manage virtual infrastructure across clouds. == == http://aeolusproject.org == "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." --Robert McCloskey
