Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)
>>"David" == David Engel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> And if we did collectively wish to be
>> self destructive, who has the right to stop us?
David> Perhaps the users we are supposedly trying to serve.
Shades of old arguments. For the record, I am not really doing
this to serve any users. I am doing this cause it pleases my
muse. The community has some meaning for me, but is vastly
subservient to my own needs.
David> I take it then that you think any volunteer organization should forego
David> leaders and stop to take a vote whenever a decision needs to be made
David> just because the volunteers are the ones that actually do the work.
Not quite. But not having a say cause there is a leader wo has
supreme right does not cut it either.
I think the constitution is a fair compromise. There is a
project leader, ad he has delegates. There is a project secretary.
And then there is the tech committee.
But there are checks and balances in place. The structure
desacribed is by no means a participatory democracy, but the
developer have other recourse than "leave the project". I have spent
three years of my life in Debian. I am not going to like leaving the
project being the only choice I am presented.
David> As others have already noted, this discussion is diverting attention
David> from releasing hamm. So how can we wrap this up and move forward?
My packages do not have release critical bugs. Unfortunately,
time constraints at the moment prevent me from doing much more than
submitting bur reports as I find bugs; and reading email during
A conjecture both deep and profound Is whether a circle is round. In
a paper of Erdos written in Kurdish A counterexample is found.
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