tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes:
> It's pointless to suppose that individual developers would really be
> answerable to any project-wide management, since that's not who
> they're paid by. So I tend to think that a project roadmap would be
> more of an exercise in wishful thinking than a useful management
> tool. OTOH it *could* be useful, if there are any developers out
> there wondering what they should work on next. Are there any
> ... and would they listen to a roadmap if they had one, rather than
> scratching their own itches?
It seems to me that there's a vital difference between "sponsored
developers" and "hobbyists," here.
If a sponsored developer's work isn't providing their own organization
with value, then some managers outside the scope of PGDG will
doubtless demand some answers. And if the organization wants some
particular features, that may help guide some developers without PGDG
having expended any "managerial effort."
Those "answerability mechanisms" don't apply to as material a degree
to hobbyists.
--
"cbbrowne","@","ntlug.org"
http://cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html
if (argc > 1 && strcmp(argv[1], "-advice") == 0) {
printf("Don't Panic!\n");
exit(42);
}
(Arnold Robbins in the LJ of February '95, describing RCS)