I know this is controversial, but i tend to agree with the general premise that it's helpful to have one person (or two), who is for all intents and purposes in charge of making final decisions and riding herd over a project.
This short essay talks about why:
ps. While i agree with most of the points I don't don't agree it has to be one person for life -- i see no reason not to rotate people in charge. And i think when a project has only a few core developers, a normal informal equal-responsibility situation is fine. I think this need to have one designated person in charge really becomes useful mostly when the group starts getting bigger. My experience is that some things will just never get done unless you have a designated person to crack the whip and make sure everything that needs to get done does in fact get done.
This short essay talks about why:
Quote
Some people seem to challenge the idea that most (if not all) free software projects need a benevolent dictator—that is, somebody who has the last say on every decision. They are quick to point out Linus Torvalds’ past “mistakes” (see the brackets): using BitKeeper to manage the kernel, not allowing “pluggable” schedulers in Linux, etc. As a software developer, I feel that a dictator is absolutely necessary in every free software project. Here is why.
ps. While i agree with most of the points I don't don't agree it has to be one person for life -- i see no reason not to rotate people in charge. And i think when a project has only a few core developers, a normal informal equal-responsibility situation is fine. I think this need to have one designated person in charge really becomes useful mostly when the group starts getting bigger. My experience is that some things will just never get done unless you have a designated person to crack the whip and make sure everything that needs to get done does in fact get done.
