C Y <smustudent1@yahoo.com> writes:
> --- Kevin Cosgrove <kevinc@doink.com> wrote:
> >Yes that, and deciding what goes into the stable releases
> >and into the development releases. From what I've seen,
> >projects with a dedicated skilled leader succeed, and
> >others are much less successful. Maybe that's a truism?
>
> Usually that leader is the project founder - since it's his/
> her project, they have a voice of authority.
I think that that being the actual founder isn't that crucial, the
important thing is having a dedicated skilled leader as the voice of
authority.
> >It seems possible that the project could also succeed if
> >we could get consensus on what we're going to do, when
> >to do it, how to decide when it's done & good enough for
> >a certain class of release, and then how/when to repeat
> >this. Would you call that a charter & plan?
>
> That also works, but I think what would be needed here is
> a hybrid - a core group with skills and high standards who
> work on the core system and also evaluate packages people
> write to see if they are good enough to include, and a sort
> of second tier which either picks a task from a wishlist we
> put togeather, or starts their own effort as they
> choose, and the core group can evaluate it and include it
> when it reaches high enough quality.
I think this may be where Maxima ends up, but I don't think it's an
ideal situation. In my experience, having a single leader making the
final decisions has better results than working off of a group
consensus. There are people here who are certainly capable, although
I don't know if they'd be willing to take on the task.
So Maxima may end up being run by committee, but I don't think that
should be the first choice.
Jay