On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: >> 2009/10/8 Máirín Duffy <mairin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> On 10/08/2009 11:58 AM, inode0 wrote: >>>> >>>> There is a strong hint in all of this that some people prefer a >>>> traditional hierarchical management structure to this project. >>>> Fundamentally that is what fills me with the trepidation I mentioned >>>> in my very first post on this thread. >>> >>> I don't think traditional hierarchical management is a foregone >>> conclusion >>> with strong vision statements. >> >> No, it certainly isn't. And all I've been doing is expressing concern >> about hierarchical organization creep resulting from such >> proclamations becoming organizational dogma. >> >> If the statements guide contributors and potential contributors along >> the way that is all fine and good. If they become the justification >> for stifling/impeding/whatever the work of folks who think outside >> this box you define then I think it is bad. >> >> Avoid that and I'm content. :) > > A lot of producing something worth using is not about adding new bits. It's > about taking away unnecessary bits. > > I've found that saying 'no' is often a gain. If that's stifling, so be it. Saying no isn't the issue. Contributors say no on a daily basis, SIGs say no, steering committees say no, the board says no. The issue, which is really hard to discuss without a vision statement on the table, is whether that vision statement will have any teeth in it. If it does have teeth then we are defining a sandbox into which new contributors (and old) are expected to play and we are telling them in advance that if their favorite game doesn't fit in our sandbox they aren't welcome to play with us. John _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
