Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:11:52 -0500 Lance Albertson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | I partially agree that a strong council will help the situation, but > | the problem with any leadership-by-committee model is the lack of > | quick decisions. Many times things come up that need a quick > | resolution (when I say quick, I mean within a few days). And if you > | have a committee of 7 or so people that live in several different > | timezones, its extremely hard to get them together to discuss it all. > > Mmm, afaics there's nothing preventing the council from having quick, > 'as needed' informal interim meetings with whoever happens to be around. > If a few people aren't there, it's not as big a deal as if people don't > show up to the monthly meetings. Heck, the monthly meetings could be > considered a minimum...
Indeed. I have to agree with Ciaran here, a stronger council seems to be one of the best solutions. A (benevolent) dictatorship, or the opposite of extending the democracy level even more, aren't going to solve anything imho. The dictatorship model sure doesn't motivate volunteers, and having more than one person is anyway better, as already pointed out, to not have single points of failure, or potential for quick and big damage. The opposite of a total democracy too doesn't cut it, when anyone starts having the power to put stuff to vote, make up referendums etc., things start to slow down and get caught up in endless bureaucracy (I'm swiss, it happens there, often, not that it isn't a good thing for something like a nation, but for something the size of Gentoo, and with the scope of Gentoo, it would just hurt imho). > | The council has its merits, but it also has its weaknesses, this one > | being one of them. I think I mentioned 6mo ago that we could keep the > | council, but select one person to sort of be the "operational lead" > | to make quick decisions so that development moves on. > > What happens if he or she (ok, he) isn't around? Is the flexibility of > having a single "on the spot decision" leader enough to outweigh the > disadvantages over allowing mini meetings? The ability of the council to hold arbitrary mini-meetings when needed, and eventually change the decisions at a later date (with a time limit of course, so that people can start doing work, and at the same time don't do too much work for it to then be eventually refused) if there is extreme opposition (basically if you have only 2 members around, those decides "YES", and the other 5 then tell "NO NO NO!") would seem the best course of action to me. Having the "one council leader" doesn't cut it, as Ciaran already mentioned for reasons of availability, and again we'd introduce a possible "quick" point-of-failure. If there is a decision that needs to be done extremely quick, just get together the council members that are there and do it, although I wouldn't expect it to be commonplace to have decisions that affect the whole of Gentoo that need to be taken in like an hour or two, at least 1-4 days of time to "prepare" for the decision can always be required, thus allowing the council members to be there in a reasonable amount for those mini-meetings, and if not, but if they know they want to say something, there still are proxies that can act for them. Raising the number to two co-leads can also be a solution, but what if exactly those two are away for whatever reason, but the other 5 are around? Now do they have to wait on one of the aforementioned two people to do anything? That still is a possible point-of-failure, which the other model (who is there decides, who is not does not) would solve relatively well. -- Best regards, Luca Longinotti aka CHTEKK LongiTEKK Networks Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Dev: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SysCP Dev: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TILUG Supporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
