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

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

>>"Bear" == Bear Giles <bgiles@dimensional.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  <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: