Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)
There were many fine messages in today's discussion so I'll try to be
brief. If you don't want to read the whole, at least please read the
On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 10:18:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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.
I think we have already seen that such leadership is needed.
Furthermore, I believe that there are multiple people already
associated with Debian that can do the job if given the opportunity.
> 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)
> failed miserably.
> You know why? Cause the developer did not want to go where he
> was leading us.
Bruce led Debian for a long time and accomplished many good things. I
believe he eventually got worn down though (it is a tough job, after
all) and became furstrated and prone to knee-jerk reactions. It was
time for him to pass the baton. I hope that even he would agree with
that now that he has had time to regain some perspective.
None of this, however, means that the next leader couldn't do an even
> 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''.
Not intentionally desctructive, but destructive nonetheless. Me
starting this thread knowing that it would risk further delays in hamm
is only one example. I only hope that a positive result will make it
worth the pain.
> And if we did collectively wish to be
> self destructive, who has the right to stop us?
Perhaps the users we are supposedly trying to serve.
> 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
> in now?
I take it then that you think any volunteer organization should forego
leaders and stop to take a vote whenever a decision needs to be made
just because the volunteers are the ones that actually do the work.
On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > weekend. Then maybe we can get off and try and actually *DO*
> > something, like design and implementation, rather than sit around
> > talking goals.
> Design and implimentation follow goals, not the other way around.
> A discussion requires setting goals and determining just what is necessary
> from each of us to make these goals attainable.
Right. We have to know where we want to go before we can decide how
to get there.
On Thu, Jun 04, 1998 at 09:36:54AM +0800, Bill Mitchell wrote:
> I'm that guy, or at least I think I recognize this as a paraphrase of
> something I suggested. Thanks for the comment. I think such a plan would
> be a considerable improvement over current practice. I'm a bit
> disappointed that the suggestion seems to have been passed by
> without very much discussion (not that the debian project needs a lot
I haven't forgotten about your suggestion, Bill. I'm simply trying to
focus on the bigger issues that need to be resolved first.
On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 10:15:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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.
This probably is being blown somewhat out of proportion. Like I said
earlier, however, I think we have some fundamental differences of
opinion on how to run Debian we're just going to have to agree to
disagree (for now).
As others have already noted, this discussion is diverting attention
from releasing hamm. So how can we wrap this up and move forward?
My suggestion is to table this discussion _and_ any voting on a
constitution until after hamm is released. Hopefully, we can hash
this all out once and for all then. I also encourage others to follow
me in asking Brian White (you are still the release coordinator,
right?) "What can I do to help get hamm out the door?"
David Engel ODS Networks
email@example.com 1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com