Re: [gentoo-osx] Arch Testing Policy and Procedures

[Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Nathan wrote:

[snip]
> Assuming (again-sorry, where are those docs?) that a Gentoo lead 
> consists of mostly extra responsibilities, and not of extra sticks to 
> beat people with, being a lead tends to be more of a 'character building 
> chore' for the lead than anything else.

Yes, in an ideal world, a lead would not have to exercise powers that 
no-one else in the team posessed. But in reality, one doesn't elect leads 
by drawing straws to pick a random unfortunate who will merely carry the 
burden of extra responsibilities. So why elect a lead?

In my opinion, the most effective (and innovative) open source projects 
are run by an (inspired) dictator, and the least effective are run by 
committee or by a loose group of random volunteers, each one with a 
different "itch to scratch".

[snip]
> Do you really think Hasan and/or Lina are going to turn into earless 
> monsters if they jointly become 'the lead'?
  
The problem here is that gentoo-osx lacks a coherent shared goal*, and 
electing a lead isn't going to help much unless it can provide that. 
Electing two leads is, in general, worse than electing one when it is a 
coherent vision that is missing. It is like having a committee of 2.

-f

* And I confess that I have helped muddy the water on that score.
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list