First I want to say that I am very happy with what BitShares has become! Also I admire the passion and idealism Larimer and co put into BitShares. A groundbreaking product (BitAssets + lots of innovations like DPOS and TITAN) has been produced within relatively little time.
To following should stimulate a hopefully fruitful discussion about an issue that will always be a balance.
I am asking (myself and I3) whether the tendency towards atomic entities (individual teams, individual developers, no hierarchies whatsoever) is practically helpful for the realization of all the BitShares ideas and projects.
Maybe it is naive but wouldn't it help if all the devs would work on all the bitshares ideas as a team rather than individuals who do all kinds of uncoordinated things. (was maybe a bit exaggerated but i have the impression that this is the tendency)
There is another (related) issue: Transparency/Openness towards the forum: I think this is an important goal worth achieving. The question is just whether this goal would be in danger if "strategic proposals posts" or other ideas, plans and side projects (the merger proposal would certainly be an example) would first be discussed with the "team" to a point where they are "finished". I, as a stakeholder in all BTS ideas, would wish for a "PR strategy" that is sensitive towards the sometimes subtle subtexts conveyed which can result in FUD which can hurt the project long term because shareholder see the BitShares dev team as not capable of handling "investor relations" well, also given that the Chinese community panics easily at certain "pain words". That would practically include that all fundamental strategic posts are vetted with the team first so that a solution can be found that is part of a bigger picture where the consequences have been thought about (instead of giving the forum/shareholders a weekend of a FUD/enthusiasm roller coaster which will overall always be more painful because uncertainty is always perceived as negative).
I know that what I described above can never be reached! It will always be a process and like BM said it will always be foggy where everyone can only see so far. What I propose though is that a team that works as a team (and not as individuals doing whatever they like) might also just see 10 meters ahead like on individual but might see more interconnections and unconsidered consequences. After that team vetting process the forum public would be helpful like it has greatly been in the past.
Here is my philosophical perspective on hierarchies:
I totally oppose any hierarchies with respect to social standings. Hierarchies separate artificially. There is no difference among anything that lives when the essential core is what is looked at. I personally respect people for two reasons only: Because they are humans and behave as such (being trustworthy, emphatic, loving...) and because they have good arguments and/or skills. The power (over others someone has) is no reason to for me to treat anyone any different.
On the other side hierarchies can be functional which do not effect the value of individuals (as described above). And there is something like a "team spirit" that holds people together through trust beyond what is necessary for the individual.
What I head in mind I think was "a normal startup team" that works towards a common goal. I also see that the whole forum is kind of the extended (vetting) team which has lots of value. It's all a balance
I have to add that this IS ONLY MY OUTSIDE IMPRESSION which I wanted to share to ignite some discussion about the way to get most effectively towards our goals.
Topic: Division of team contraproductive (Read 3802 times)
