On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:02:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > From my perspective this idea is to take the DPL from one or two > > people to more people. Why? To get more done. > > Throwing more people at a problem does not always get more > done. Just read the Mythical man month. (Can throwing 1024 people > into DPLship get a thousand times more accomplished?) > > Adding more people can lead to the dilution of responsibility, > and inaction since the board can't come to a decision, with lots more > debates and internal strife.
I was not suggesting the need to 'throw more resources' at the percieved problem. I've heard and read about the bad outcome of 'forming a team' and how this just leads to inaction and passing the buck. That is what I was questioning in regard to the idea of the 'DPL team'. I was trying to address what I thought it was trying to address but in a way that would not 'simple add people'. I was expecting people to volunteer to do something that they had the intention to do vs. someone just being told to do it and that appointed person having no interest. > > > Because the DPL can not do all that he/she wants by him/herself with > > the timeframe of an election cycle. > > Is this a real problem? Has any ex-DPL actually stated that > they ran out of time? This is what I surmised from the thread. If there has never been any expression of this by a DPL in public or private, then what problem is the "DPL team" trying to solve? Faster handling of 'administrativa' what ever that is? It doesn't sound taxing. -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/| | `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and | | `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
