Martin Hollmichel wrote:
[...]
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.
I disagree there does seem to be a feeling of "giving up" if one passes
the reins on, as tho the incumbent must be able to demonstrate complete
exhaustion before passing on the job. Read Scotts post in this
thread. It's like farting, we feel guilty about doing it, but if we
didn't we'd die. ;) It's just the way we are. In our paid time we work
in a cathedral building context when we "clock off" and go back to the
bazaar it's hard to remove the other.
What should happen is that the project leads should be able to simply
say "Had enough , who's next" without feeling they're letting people or
the project down
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.
Very true, however when Andre first started the discussion, we didn't
know they were on holiday and I doubt anyone's in a rush, Andre did make
the point that this was justa discussion at this point.
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 :-)
Sorry you've lost me completely. :) ... my turn??? in what way?
I think we all agree that the QA project should be a vital one, so any
discussion on how to proceed here is welcome.
Never denied it, and that is exactly what has happened and is happening now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
