xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bill parducci <b...@parducci.net>
Subject Re: Resend of first cut
Date Thu, 08 Mar 2001 02:28:44 GMT
> Well, I think the previous PMC suffered badly from not having enough real
> committers... that was one of it's major flaws, in my opinion.  They were
> appointed because of the company politics that occurred when xml.apache.org
> formed (again, in my opinion).  And at least one of those members had a
> very good reputation as a manager (I think).

hey, i am with you here. my point is that non committers *can* have
value, not that they necessarily do be default.  by the same token i
think that you can have committers that can actually be a hindrance when
given a non developmental role. any generalization will have a
percentage of qualified and non qualified people for any specific tasks,
which is why i chafe at concept of profiling solely on commit status.

> Hmm... well, I think I would rather be "managed" by someone who I know
> understands my problems, and also understands that they don't know how to
> manage, than someone who thinks they understand my problems, and thinks
> they know how to manage.  

again, i agree from the perspective of qualifications. in this
particular case though how much do you figure on being 'managed' by the
PMC. if it operates in the spirit of its charter my thinking is that the
PMC is really a tool for the committers to rely upon to make sure the is
consistency and clarity of communication. 

> The problems in an Open Source "community" are
> different from a business or classic development manager scenario.  I'm not
> sure someone who comes from a management scenario in business has a head
> start in an Open Source scenario.

> BUT, I want to make it clear:  I believe in business and development
> management in companies.  Some of my favorate managers have never touched a
> line of code. 

"i don't hate managers, heck, some of my friends are managers." :o)

> Sometimes it's worse when a manager thinks s/he's technical
> and can understand the problems that a coder faces (often the last line of
> code they wrote was in 1971).  I just think that Apache is a fundementally
> different model than a business, and the same techniques do not necessarily
> apply.

ah, here is where i disagree. the fundamental problems are exactly the
same up until you reach the point of driving force. both are aimed at
developing a product with target features, both are a collection of
personalities with differing skill sets working towards a common goal. 
where they depart is on the criteria of what may constitute a sound
development direction -- as i am sure most of the people on this list
are aware from personal experience -- for profit development is driven
by direct customer requests (or whatever the less than educated
marketing/sales person perceives as a request :o) and under a time line
that typically sacrifices elegance over delivery.  replace 'customer
requests' with 'todo lists' and 'quarterly sales numbers' with'
dependencies on and by other projects/people' and you have the same
fundamental issues: communication, coordination and publication. 

i think that the issues you are concerned about have more to do with
being able to work in a distributed, non real time environment than
business vs. open source. now that is a different issue altogether
(another point at which i think we agree).


View raw message