OK, then I'll try to provide more clarification. I don't understand
how a project without leadership can succeed. I don't care what you
call it, someone needs to drive the process. I'm not talking about an
implication of authority or a higher degree of ownership - I'm talking
strictly about making things happen. If that's not a "leader", then
what is it, in ASF terms?
Note that "leader" does not necessarily mean "singular" (i.e.
"dictator"). Most projects have multiple leaders. IMO, a project
without a "leader" (or leaders), will go nowhere.
G
On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:18 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: Greg Brown <gkbr...@mac.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:12:36 PM
Subject: Re: incorrect terminology: lead developers
We don't have a notion of fixed leadership at Apache. Leadership is
always welcome but it is determined by the will of the group in
question
at a given point in time, not based on one's official status. We
try to
avoid status symbols in order to retain the fair balance of
individual
decision making within our projects.
Of course. My issue is with the idea that a project can be
successful in the
absence of any kind of leadership. So maybe some clarification on
terminology is
in order...
I thought David's explanation that we don't us the phrase "project
leads"
at Apache was fairly straightforward ;-).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
