Martyn, you are right that reopening discussions on already resolved issues is bad. But I think it either means that the decision really needs revising, or that some team members have concerns that need to be addressed/explained.
I'm sure you wrote this mail because of yesterday's state machine discussion. I believe all that has been said was necessary to be said. I think it would be demotivating if the discussions were to be cut. I think it's important that people at least know that their points have been heard by others and it's then very interesting to hear the response. Speaking for myself, that's perfectly enough for me. I'm very happy that I had the chance to voice the concerns and if it doesn't change things, it's perfectly fine. The reason why I bring this stuff up is that it gives me comfort to follow decisions when I know that all arguments have been taken into account. Thanks for having the patience to talk about it once more :) 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. 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. Take care, J. On 9.1.2013 20:32, 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? Regards, Martyn
