Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Philip> No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.
Inefficient or not, if it is the only thing that works ...
Philip> We developers are not under anyone's power, since we can
Philip> always do our own thing, or leave the project, so the
Philip> protection democracy gives is unnecessary and adds wasteful
Philip> overhead to the decision making process.
Creating a system whence the only recourse left to the workers
is to leave the system is a bad thing.
Mind you, this is being blown all out of proportion. I am an
adherent of the current constitution; and there *is* a project
leader, a secretary, and trhere shall be delegates with authority in
certain areas. It is not as if things arte constrained to be decided
by popular vote.
The SRP protocol is already geared towards discouraging
frivolous resolutions; and I think it is critical that a group of
developers (at least K are required).
Philip> They are special, because they are willing to put their heads
Philip> above the parapet, and take that sort of thing from you.
Sorry. I do not feel this is enough. We all are contributing
Philip> 1) The vast majority of developers want something to happen:
Philip> It's probably going to happen then --- no need for a vote
Hell, no. This is quite naive. Firstly, you assume perfect
information (a failure of our economics dilletantes too). There _is_
no perfect knowledge. People do not know what others want. Things
don't just ``happen''. A vocal minority often holds sway.
Philip> 2) The vast majority of developers don't want something to happen
Philip> It's probably not going to happen then --- no need for a vote
Again, this is not realistic.
I do agree that democracy is the wrong way to settle a
technical discussion. But often, the discussions involved are not
technical -- they are subjectve, and there is no (knowable) right
answer. That is where developer inpput comes in.
Philip> In this project, the act of taking on a difficult job gives
Philip> you the right to do it in any way you see fit. If that means
Philip> that you annoy enough of the developers, then you may get
Philip> yourself expelled from the project, but someone else is
Philip> likely to stand up and do it another way, before that
I hate to set up a system that is so apha-male-chauvinistically
confrontational. There has to be a simpler way to make things fun for
people. Not just "Do it OUIR way or take the highway" approach.
Philip> The fact is, that in most cases there is one way of doing
Philip> things that is more technically excellent than the
Philip> alternatives (this being a technical, rather than a political
Philip> project), so disagreements happen less often than in normal
Philip> life. Where this is not the case, it normally gets resolved
Philip> by the fist person that does something about it pleasing
Philip> themselves, and the rest of us not minding _too_ much.
Oh, Lord, this project has no politics? All decisions are
subjective and technical? Where have you been?
Philip> Most of the more vocal arguments on these lists seem come
Philip> from people claiming to be supported by some sort of majority
Philip> (often falsely) and drawing the conclusion that they have the
Philip> right to tell an individual what to do. Well I don't think
Philip> we have the right to tell anyone in this project what to do.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say democracy
is not the way to go. That leaders suggest things. And now,
there is no protocol for resolution. This is a recipe for chaos.
The constitution is an agreement: a partnership of people who
realizer that in life there is conflict, and who agree on protocols
to promote resolution of these conflicts.
The issue of resolving using votes: it assumes that we are at
least sei reasonable people here; if the issue is so clear cut and
technical, then people can be made to see that and reach a consensus;
that a vote is a method to determine the popular sentiment on
selection between subjective choices.
The constitution is rather poor democracy, when it comes to
that (developers have total control of their packages, unless drastic
measures are taken -- no voting there): it is, however, in my
opinion, something that we need.
"Did U arrest the 85 yr old lady or just beat her up." "We just
slapped her around a bit... she's getting m/t [medical treatment]
right now." LAPD squad-car computer messages, as quoted in the
Christopher Report, 7/91
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