Re: Discussing issues

Rich Murphey ([email protected]):

> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Billy Biggs
> > Mark Vojkovich ([email protected]):
> > 
> > > Personally, I am happy to have another project drive standards and
> > > leave XFree86 to trying to be the best implementation.  I think
> > > XFree86 has enough work just trying to ensure that it has the
> > > infrastructure in place to be the best X11 implementation and
> > > pursuing that goal, which is the only one we've agreed to.
> > 
> > Besides standards work, I think the governance seekers are looking
> > to fill a perceived lack of leadership.  The statements from both
> > you and David Dawes tell me that deciding which patches are accepted
> > into XFree86's tree is a sufficient amount of leadership for this
> > project.  I hear the tone of "XFree86 has no policy beyond the code
> > itself".
> > 
> > I think this is sufficient, but at face it shows a lack of interest
> > in seeking consensus among developers regarding project direction
> > (or lack thereof), and I think this has caused some to see XFree86
> > as a broken project.
> 
> If anything, there is consensus about what Mark describes.
> 
> > More publicly visible leadership roles, such as splitting drivers
> > and handing the off to designated maintainers, or considering parts
> > of Havoc's more drastic proposals, might really help to achieve
> > consensus among developers about their goals and directions.
> 
> Has everyone forgotten the effort that went into the loadable
> modules/driver API and infrastructure?  This wouldn't have happened
> without leadership.  Much of that leadership is in the form of well
> thought out architecture and follow through on finishing the
> implementation.

  Of course, leadership does exist in the project, and I don't mean to
put it down.  The project does have direction, and the developers do
have goals, but they seem mostly private and personal.  I don't believe
that the project leadership leadership was visible to the contributors
or interested developers who sat on Xpert.  Improving communication
channels is a great start, so is this list, so is the bugzilla.  Having
specific maintainers for drivers and other components would help
diversify the leadership roles.  I think this can be improved.

> In a practical sense, the essential element of consensus and goals is
> that of getting a release out, and that depends far more on strength
> of working relationships than allignment of motivation.  Team members
> will always have unique interestes in hardware or portions of the
> server.  However, the ability to get a release out together tends to
> determine the final results.
> 
> Is your concern release engineering or development?

  I agree that you don't need alignment, and I think I am talking more
about ensuring that working relationships exist and that they are clear
to individuals who wish to contribute to the project.

  -Billy