[...]
Agreed, however it is a factor of the structure of OOo (or any FLOSS
project working alongside a commercial organisation for that matter) in
that we have a Bazaar working in parallel with Cathedral builders and I
don't think any of the other OOo projects are quite as close to the
Cathedral building side of OOo as is qa and perhaps that rubs off a bit.
We need to loose the idea that changing the leadership of a project is a
negative thing.
I don't think that anybody here think that changing the leadership is a
negative thing. As I know Michael and Scott they are open for anybody
who is willing or able to put more work in this project. But as we know
now, that they are both on vacation this week we can wait for a few days
more and let them participate on discussion of if or how a transition of
leadership can be made. At least this is my understanding of how
collabaration should work.
It isn't, it's a sign of the dynamism of the bazaar
model of FLOSS. Scott and Michael have done a great job and the project
should say thanks for that, it's time to give someone else the chance to
make their mark. Stability in leadership is overrated, it is the team
or the collective bazaar that make things happen because as you rightly
point out there are any number of people in the project that can handle
the reins.
We should use the time and collect ideas how the feature of the project
could be made better. I will not vote for a new project lead (or confirm
an old one) who's crying loudest for new leadership but for the one I
have most confidence for the future for. Now it's your turn :-)
I think we all agree that the QA project should be a vital one, so any
discussion on how to proceed here is welcome.
cheers
Yo
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
