Re: How to become a maintainer
From: Thierry Laronde <thierry.laronde@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: How to become a maintainer
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 22:01:23 +0200
> Hello, I'm a French, and I'm nothing to Debian organization at the moment, so
> this is only a friendly comment of your mail. I hope for you that you will
> receive an authorized answer from somebody actually involved in development.
Hello, thank you for your kind comment.
> I have a very egocentric proof of the efficiency of Debian JP. I have the
> surprise to observe that Japan is almost always the first country to visit the
> web page where one can see my proposal for the logos.
> This means that Debian JP is driven enough to notice even secondary messages like
> mines ; efficient enough to put on its web site links only a few hours after a
> proposal has been posted ; and numerous enough to have dozens of persons
> following these links !
> Thanks, it has been a great encouragement !
Yes, this shows a good evidence of the power of Debian JP
and remember that
> IMHO, internationalization is one of the main goal
I agree this point also.
> As I said in the beginning, the following is only an unauthorized comment.
>
> I think you're right for the following reasons :
> the success of free software ( I don't mean gratis, but allowing the access to
> the sources, thus to a knowledge which is the real liberty) is not the result of
> an absolute anarchist development, but the result of the combination of an *open*
> process and, actually, a kind of *hierarchical* organization :
>
> - the open process permits anybody who has the will and the abilities to be
> involved ; and thus, a good idea has less risks to be spoiled ;
>
> - the hierarchical organization, as long as it is the result of capabilities and
> not what we're finding in old institutions - I mean the consequence of
> relationships, seniority and habits - is the efficientest method to have the best
> outcomes, because intelligence is an intensive value ( in a thermodynamic sense),
> not an extensive one : the intelligence of a crowd is not the addition of the
> intelligences of the individuals, but is generaly smaller than the intelligence
> of the more intelligent ( there is even some cases where the intelligence of the
> total is smaller than the intelligence of the less intelligent).
> If , *for a particular purpose*, the leader is the more capable, then the crowd
> has the maximum intelligence, and the work force is in that case the addition of
> the individual forces.
>
> So, IMHO, there must be a hierarchical organization which preserves the open
> process : your proposal, a hierarchical organization based on geographical
> sub-structures is a logical solution, which keeps the whole hierarchy and will
> prevent us from loosing capacities disgusted by "administrative" malfunction due
> to a charge of work which is not humanly tolerable.
Thank you for your very detailed arguments.
This is the main point of my proposal, especially note that
"a hierarchical organization based on geographical sub-structures"
is very important from the above reasoning.
> I hope for you , and for us, that there will be a more useful feedback than mine.
You mentioned "and for us" also. This impresses me so much.
I srongly want authorized answer from somebody actually involved
in development.
My proposal is of "Priority: required" not of "Priority: optional".
1999.5.6
--
**************************
Atsuhito Kohda
Dep. Math., Tokushima Univ.
kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp
Reply to: