Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)
>>"Bear" == Bear Giles <email@example.com> writes:
Bear> On the other hand, proportional (or corporate) democracies can be
Bear> remarkably stable. In the case of Debian, a pretty straightforward
Bear> democracy can be implemented by voting by "shares," where one share ==
Bear> one package. You could also weigh shares by category; e.g., an essential
Bear> package is worth 5 shares, an optional package is worth 2 shares and
Bear> an "extra" package is only worth one.
Prolificity is a remarkably bad metric of competence too. We
need not only people who do the work, we also need to give importance
to the quality of work performed. Cookie cutter packages should not
count as a large complex package does --- however, I am suspisious of
simplistic metrics like this.
I figure that peole who do the work, and are competent, would
be paid more attention to during a discussion. And hence may
influence a vote.
I may bge all wet though, and extremely vocal people like me
may well over whelm discussions.
In any case, no one has really proposed a participatory
democracy for Debian. The proposal is for a project leader, and
delegates of that authority, and really, developers maintain full
editorial control over their packages. There are checks and balances
instituted for all the powers, but by no means is it an athenian
I am off to play zangband.
We're here to give you a computer, not a religion. attributed to Bob
Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org