leadership

Ubuntu will sink or swim on the merits of its leadership.

Even if it didn't stop it, at least the company leadership might have felt the heat.

You have got to show me."> The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company.

It's much like the corporate world when the firm has way too many meetings in the course of developing something and there is a leadership vacuum.

Architecture, and technical leadership in general, is still another job.

You'll encourage a leadership culture of cutthroat sociopaths whose success is at best tangentially related to the quality of their work.

During one surreal leadership presentation where hundreds of people joined via a web meeting and many more were present in person, someone forgot to lock down presenter rights, and people kept drawing on the slides.

This seems to be a completely plausible claim, and that would be a reason why many American voters or leaders of countries allied to the United States might desire the current leadership of NSA to resign and be replaced with more competent leaders.

But this start-up model of hiring scales just fine to companies of 500-1,000 technical people if you're willing to create a culture where everyone, especially the top technical leadership, is personally invested in hiring and devotes a reasonable amount of time to evaluating people.

Almost the entire piece does nothing but cite facts, such as: the dropping of the nuclear bombs does not figure significantly in historical records of the Japanese leadership's discussion about surrender; the Japanese war council decided on August 8 not even to discuss the Hiroshima bombing; damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not out of scale with the earlier fire-bombings of other cities; Japanese leaders had expressed a willingness to sacrifice their cities if necessary; Japan's war strategy was predicated on the Soviets staying neutral; and so on.