Who Needs an Architect?

In this article the author talks about the concept of architecture and what it means to him. At the beginning he starts to give the IEEE definition, and it is very interesting to see what he thinks about this definition, giving his opinion about the parts in which he agrees and the parts in which he disagrees.
The author defines two types of architects, these are:

Architectus Reloadus: is the person who makes all the important decisions. The architect does this because a single mind is needed to ensure a system’s conceptual integrity, and perhaps because the architect doesn’t think that the team members are sufficiently skilled to make those decisions. Often, such decisions must be made early on so that everyone else has a plan to follow.

Architectus Oryzus: This kind of architect must be very aware of what’s going on in the project, looking out for important issues and tackling them before they become a serious problem.

The most important activity of Architectus Oryzus is to mentor the development team, to raise their level so that they can take on more complex issues. Improving the development team’s ability gives an architect much greater leverage than being the sole decision maker and thus running the risk of being an architectural bottleneck. This leads to the satisfying rule of thumb that an architect’s value is inversely proportional to the number of decisions he or she makes.

In general, I consider both people to be very important in the software development process. I couldn't imagine this process without one of these two people. I like how the author gives a name to each one and is very specific in the functions he has.
To conclude, I liked this article very much, I understand much better the concept of software architecture and the actors involved in it.