|I'm going to abstain from voting at this point because I don't want a single manager. In my opinion there should be 3-5 "managers" with diverse skill sets, so there still will be discussion. A single manager can't understand all the different ins and outs of a problem and may not be able to determine what is best for the project.|
Puck, I believe that leaving it up to pure democracy would be extremely problematic. See how the project is currently progressing, we have a democratic system, anyone can arbitrarily start a poll. This has led to discussions within the poll, the poll eventually being dropped in favor of another poll.
SL, do you think the manager should take an active role in making decisions? I'd think that the manager can take a more secondary role, if "enough" of the active participants call for managerial intervention or if the manager decides that the argument is getting out of hand.
|I think I'll clarify what I think the management should be.|
- If a single manager, then the manager should take a secondary role.
- There should be multiple managers if and only if the managers are going to take an active role.
- Secondary role would be along these lines
-- Only the manager may start a poll
-- The manager will typically arbitrate discussions, and if necessary will make an authoritative decision
- Either way, the manager(s) will be required to research and have at least an understanding of the topics discussed.
|1) At this point, I'm abstaining from voting. But I'll vote later if the manager's purpose becomes more specified.|
2) And to copy SG: Shadowlord, Megagun, Puck; essentially everyone on the development team are all great choices.