--- In [email protected], Steve Jones <jones.ste...@...> wrote: > > I wouldn't say that DARPA is an individual or that Brooks was the > single guiding leader behind OS/360. There are loads of brilliant > minds in the short history of IT (only one genius though, Alan > Turning) but the question was around a consistent single leader > being a good thing.
Dave Cutler springs to mind as well. And in a completely different field, Clarence "Kelly" Johnson. I think we probably agree--an effective leader can be a good thing, and an ineffective leader can be a death-knell. I'd add this as well--a committee without an effective leader will generally produce less compelling material than will a group with a strong leader. Committees can be great when the goal is standardization--it matters more that a standard be established than that the standard be a great technology achievement. For SO principles, I think it matters more that the resulting architecture fulfill the goals of the entity that it models. IMO, that means strong architectural leadership and SO architects at all levels would benefit from a broadly recognized leader. Alas, SO is far from that. I recall someone pointing out that Gartner wasn't the definitive source for the meaning of SOA--even though virtually everyone recognizes Schulte and Natis as having coined the term and publishing the first formal definition. I recall also someone on another form saying that Gall's interpretation of WOA was wrong--even though he was the one that defined the term in the first place. Disagreements abound regarding what SOA means. I was wistfully and futilely wishing for someone that could help unify things. Might the OASIS work satisfy that? It seems doubtful as this is the only forum I've ever seen anyone mention it. -Rob
