Hey, alright! Even if we get price gouged for all of our computer accessories, televisions, appliances, etc., at least we can get the new Backstreet Boys album for $10!
I recently thought about attempting running an OS project off of SourceForge. I kind of attempted to consider a way for people to assist on the design and direction on the project. I've ended up realizing that leadership is a necessary thing, which, as I've kind of learned through other experiences recently, is a natural occurrence whenever a group of people get together to work. Someone, official or not, usually ends up leading the group.
This article had some good reasons to support the necessity of leadership in OS projects, which could actually be a more general law. I don't know too many teams of people getting to a state of self-management without some kind of leadership being the catalyst for the group dynamic. Most of the time it seems like the group starts out in a kind of "bazaar" form, and then official (or unofficial) leaders kind of help guide the group to achieving some kind of organization. The level and type of organization varies, but, then so does the productivity of the group.
It's a very organic process. I, for instance, originally tried to set up a protocol for setting design goals/requirements as a group then achieving these goals without having to be the leader making the decision. I don't think this can happen, mostly because it really depends upon the people who are contributing to the project. The group dynamic should try to strive for self-regulation, but it takes time to build that dynamic, and, well, it's dynamically allocated:) People are different, thus, groups probably will tend to organize themselves differently, pertaining to the task at hand. Some may have that "central authority" organization, al a fetchmail or the Communist state, others may organize around several leaders.
My point? Groups become productive when the dynamic of the group (the skills and communication capabilities of the group) is developed and refined to fit the situation at hand. This refinement usually happens from some kind of leadership, be it official or not.
Some groups might require that central pivot. Doing develop over the internet might require a leader just keeping records of who's doing what so work doesn't get duplicated. But if the group communicates amongst itself particularly well (via message boards or whatever), that kind of central authority might actually be kind of a hindrance.
To say that OS development will require a central leader is a little harsh. A leader will likely be required to give any OS project a kick in the pants, but good organization and a willingness to understand the components of the group will lead to more of a bazaar model over time.
Perhaps groups tend towards entropy.
Just my $.02, which rambled on a lot longer than I thought.
-Tristan
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, alright! Even if we get price gouged for all of our computer accessories, televisions, appliances, etc., at least we can get the new Backstreet Boys album for $10!
I'm excited - are you?
I recently thought about attempting running an OS project off of SourceForge. I kind of attempted to consider a way for people to assist on the design and direction on the project. I've ended up realizing that leadership is a necessary thing, which, as I've kind of learned through other experiences recently, is a natural occurrence whenever a group of people get together to work. Someone, official or not, usually ends up leading the group. This article had some good reasons to support the necessity of leadership in OS projects, which could actually be a more general law. I don't know too many teams of people getting to a state of self-management without some kind of leadership being the catalyst for the group dynamic. Most of the time it seems like the group starts out in a kind of "bazaar" form, and then official (or unofficial) leaders kind of help guide the group to achieving some kind of organization. The level and type of organization varies, but, then so does the productivity of the group. It's a very organic process. I, for instance, originally tried to set up a protocol for setting design goals/requirements as a group then achieving these goals without having to be the leader making the decision. I don't think this can happen, mostly because it really depends upon the people who are contributing to the project. The group dynamic should try to strive for self-regulation, but it takes time to build that dynamic, and, well, it's dynamically allocated :) People are different, thus, groups probably will tend to organize themselves differently, pertaining to the task at hand. Some may have that "central authority" organization, al a fetchmail or the Communist state, others may organize around several leaders.
My point? Groups become productive when the dynamic of the group (the skills and communication capabilities of the group) is developed and refined to fit the situation at hand. This refinement usually happens from some kind of leadership, be it official or not.
Some groups might require that central pivot. Doing develop over the internet might require a leader just keeping records of who's doing what so work doesn't get duplicated. But if the group communicates amongst itself particularly well (via message boards or whatever), that kind of central authority might actually be kind of a hindrance.
To say that OS development will require a central leader is a little harsh. A leader will likely be required to give any OS project a kick in the pants, but good organization and a willingness to understand the components of the group will lead to more of a bazaar model over time.
Perhaps groups tend towards entropy.
Just my $.02, which rambled on a lot longer than I thought.
-Tristan