On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Chris Barker <chris.barker@noaa.gov> wrote:
1) I very much agree that governance can make or break a project. However, the actual governance approach often ends up making less difference than the people involved.
2) While the FreeBSD and XFree examples do point to some real problems with the "core" model it seems that there are many other projects that are using it quite successfully.
I was just rereading the complaints about the 'core' structure from high-level NetBSD project leaders: "[the "core" and "board of directors"] teams are dysfunctional because they do not provide leadership: all they do is act reactively to requests from users and/or to resolve internal disputes. In other words: there is no initiative nor vision emerging from these teams (and, for that matter, from anybody)." [1] "There is no high-level direction; if you ask "what about the problems with threads" or "will there be a flash-friendly file system", the best you'll get is "we'd love to have both" -- but no work is done to recruit people to code these things, or encourage existing developers to work on them." [2] I imagine we will have to reconcile ourselves to similar problems, if we adopt the same structures. Cheers, Matthew [1] http://julipedia.meroh.net/2013/06/self-interview-after-leaving-netbsd.html [2] http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html