[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board

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         |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: