On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Chris Travers wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Luke <..hidden..> wrote:If you don't like the result, advise them. If you still don't like it, fire them and find somebody else. But the "management by central committee" approach has not really worked to date, so why should a version of it with a few extra people work now?Well, the management by central committee has worked very well at some things. It just hasn't worked well with regard to infrastructure
Which is the subject at hand, yes?:) Mine was not a general comment.
management. I wouldn't support getting rid of the core committee.
I never suggested that. My comments were limited to the web discussion, not other departments such as coding or policy, which have their own unique requirements, and maybe have done well with the current management approach.
That said, however, I have noticed a little apparent black-boxism in overall management. Discussions happen on subjects, then fall silent. Months later, a decision may be published. In the meantime, nobody outside has a clue what is going on. The git decision comes to mind as a recent example.
From a community involvement and interest maintenance prospective, worsethan not knowing *what* is going on, is not knowing *that* something is going on.
A useful website will patch that problem, but it will be a shallow solution if more sustained interactivity from the guys at the top does not result.
I don't care what model of management you follow, as long as its end result is a project that people want to take an interest in. The opacity and fits-and-starts communication approach, has not gotten that done, imo. The website is a big glaring symptom of the problem, but I'm not convinced that fixing it will ultimately remove the problem, which I see as more of one of PR and CR.
Of course I speak only for myself, and could be totally alone in this opinion.
Luke