On Thursday 05 January 2006 21:09, Aron Griffis wrote: > I think there is a Post Hoc fallacy happening here: A happened before > B, therefore A must be causing B. In the case at hand: A = loss of > leader, B = lack of progress. While A might be the cause of B, it is > dangerous to jump to that conclusion without more than the sequence as > support.
From what I remember from talking with Daniel, the oposite is more through. Daniel felt that things were getting nowhere, he was overloaded and brickwalled at the same time, and to make worse had financial problems. So indeed rather a fallacy. > First, Gentoo's developers are not going to follow a leader's > direction unless they sincerely agree with it. Since we're all > volunteers, the only cooperative work we're going to see is when > people agree with a goal. Therefore it doesn't matter whether you > name somebody "our leader" or if they're just another developer, > either way they're going to have to convince people to play along. > Our current model already allows for centralized leadership via > meritocracy: any developer can step up to the plate and be king for > the day, they just have to have a good idea and convince others to go > along with it. People should also notice the difference between leader and boss. > Second, I think the factualness of B is in question. A few people > have brought up examples of progress being made within Gentoo. The > problem here appears to be that the progress being made is not in the > same areas where some people are looking. Which brings up the > question: How is Gentoo falling short in your eyes? Are you certain > that those specific areas are related to the non-existence of a boss? Part of it is portage, and that is getting somewhere now. The "boss" stepped down, so that others than him can work on it too. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpLXgTkT5jgQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
