Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)
> On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:17:15AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> > Democracy would give the majority the feeling that they have the right to
> > tell the few what to do, which they absolutely do not have.
>
> That is the major falling of every democracy[...]
There are many different types of democracies. Universal franchise
democracies are *very* dangerous, for reasons well known (and easily
seen) by anyone interested in the matter.
On the other hand, proportional (or corporate) democracies can be
remarkably stable. In the case of Debian, a pretty straightforward
democracy can be implemented by voting by "shares," where one share ==
one package. You could also weigh shares by category; e.g., an essential
package is worth 5 shares, an optional package is worth 2 shares and
an "extra" package is only worth one.
That keeps control in the hands of the people who do the work, and
they're the ones most likely to know what needs to be done and the
true cost of "trivial" changes. Also, since the voting majority
rests in the hands of relatively few individuals, they can generally
lead by consensus amongst themselves. If someone disagrees with
their policies, they can easily gain a louder voice by carrying a
greater share of the load.
Since I haven't had time to work on the Hesiod package for several
weeks (not even to recompile it with libc6), I have zero shares and
you're certainly free to ignore me! :-)
Bear Giles
bgiles@coyotesong.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: