[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> 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
 Philip> happens.

	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  <srivasta@acm.org> <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 debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: