EVE is a lot of things to many different people - a sandbox, a way to socialize, a storytelling engine. But fundamentally, it's a long running software project. It's important that the CSM understand that when they deal with CCP.

Where I work, we've been adopting scrum recently as a way to manage our projects (you can read about it here). I don't believe in blindly following scrum, but I do think it's important to understand the roles it recommends and why. There are two vital roles in scrum: the product owner and the technical lead.

The product owner understands the business needs of the project. In effect, they determine the "what and why" - what needs to be delivered and why is it important. The important part is that product owners don't determine the implementation and they don't set the schedule - they simply communicate what is necessary for the project to succeed, and prioritize the work to be done. The technical lead is responsible for the "how and when" of the project. They determine how to achieve the product owner's goals and when it can be done.

The important part here is that the product owner only expresses priorities - they simply set the agenda, while the technical lead determines the implementation and when things can be done. When these two roles compete, a workable plan emerges in compromise - one that maximizes the business value delivered while remaining realistic in estimating what the team can accomplish.

While listening to the debate, it struck me that The Mittani understands the role of the product owner very well. In fact, much better than many of the professionals I've worked with over the years. So many CSM candidates think their job is to pontificate on features they'd like to see in the game - to act as a kind of firehose of bad ideas. However, the reason CSM 6 was so successful is that The Mittani instead realized his job was to set the priorities, and let CCP determine what it can deliver and when. When you simply present features, you get bogged down into discussions of technical complexity and implementation details and lose sight of the important thing - the goal you wanted the feature to accomplish. Instead you can achieve more by only setting the priorities, by communicating the results you'd like to achieve, and letting those with technical know-how determine how to achieve those ends.

It's weird to me that he would have this clear, intuitive grasp of these concepts when it's so hard to find well-paid professional software project managers that understand this stuff. But there you have it. Whatever you may think of The Mittani, how he plays the game, or if he sounds a little arrogant, the truth is he's essentially volunteering to work as a product manager for CCP and seems immensely qualified for the task.

Really, the CSM chair isn't just a political position, or a popularity contest. It's an unpaid product manager role on a long running software project. And if you think about it that way, Mittani isn't just the best candidate - he's the only qualified one.

Of course, and I certainly didn't mean to minimize your contribution. Crowdsourcing can be an important tool when it comes to getting customer feedback.

However, I think that also highlights another important facet of the product owner role. In order to be effective, teams sometimes need someone to break deadlock. Going back to my startup, there were many times where we had several equally valid areas to tackle. However, our management favored a consensus-driven approach which, while being inclusive, meant that no one owned the long term vision and direction of our project

We actually did try a different model towards the end, where each month a different developer would take over the task of acting as a product owner. However, being a product owner is actually a full time job, so whoever took on the role was instantly overloaded. Also, switching product owners monthly just continued our schizophrenic process.

This is why the CSM Chairmanship is important, and why people should vote Mittani. I think everyone agrees that CSM 6 was effective, and it should be expected that all the Proven Performers will be reelected. Still, while the contribution of each CSM member is important, it's vital that the CSM be able to speak with a single voice. In order to breakthrough deadlock and maintain focus, it's necessary that one member have a mandate (in this case, a large number of votes). I think it's only logical that this person should be the one who recognizes the importance of having a mandate - The Mittani.

Also, just to be clear, I am not literally saying that development on Eve needs to be one giant scrum. I merely think the CSM can fill a role similar to the role product owners fill on scrum teams. This is a role that I feel is often overlooked or misunderstood, yet can often be vital to the success of a project.