Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)
>>"David" == David Engel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
David> Rather, my point is that strong leadership is needed to help
David> keep everyone focused and the project on course in the future.
And I think if we need such leadership, we may as well pack
our bags and go home, for it is not going to fly. Charismatic
leadership happens. It can not be decreed, or coaxed out of
nothingness. So, either we sit around waiting for charismatic
leadership to happen to us and lift us out of our doldrums, or we
take our destiny into our own hands and do something about it.
David> I guess we're just going to have to disagree. I've stated before that
David> a democracy is not the best way to run Debian and I still stand by
David> that. Democracy is the right way to run a government. It is not the
David> right way to run a project. I would much rather see a single person
David> or small group of people, with the right vision and skills, be put in
David> charge (with some checks and balances, of course) and let them manage.
We already tried this method. Our erstwhile leader was
charismatic, had a vision, had leadership qualities. He was boldly
leading us where we had never gone before. He had us all licked into
focus. He was providing leadership. And the experiment (pardon me)
You know why? Cause the developer did not want to go where he
was leading us.
Debian is not a nation. It is not a company. You can't have
one person crack a whip and keep the galley slaves in line. Benevolent
dictatorships have a tendency to grow corrupt. And fail.
Leader ship by the Elite. Isn't that what the asian markets
were all about? No open process, no protocols, just old boy networks
'Tis a new world order, my friend.
David> I have read the constitution. It is way overkill and places too much
David> potentially destructive power in the hands of developers.
Since the developers do all the hard work, (and believe me,
sleep deprivation is not a jke, and many suffer from it), we are not
likely to be ``destructive''. And if we did collectively wish to be
self destructive, who has the right to stop us?
David> Voting by developers should be limited to the election and
David> recall of leaders and the ratification of amendments.
Why? Because even though we do all the work, the masses are
too dumb to do their own masters? We need a all knowing, all
powerful group of people to tell us how to act? What cventury are we
David> Developers should still be allowed to make proposals but the
David> final decision making authority should rest with the leaders
David> or their delegates.
I refuse to let any opne have such power. Unless they pay
me. Shall I make my rates know to the supposed leaders and delegates?
What makes leaders and delegates so special that they can command the
masses that do the work? When they bleed, does their blood run blue?
Lord FINCHLEY tried to mend the Electric Light Himself. It struck him
dead: And serve him right! It is the business of the wealthy man To
give employment to the artisan. Belloc
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com