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

Re: Debian goes big business?

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:38:54 +0100, "J.H.M. Dassen" wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 20:26:12 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 06:12:14PM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > They should have `a word to say', and they do--they can subscribe to
> > > Debian lists and give their feedback and advice, which developers are
> > > free to follow or ignore.  But they do not, and should not, IMO, have
> > > the privilege of voting or otherwise setting policy.  Users are not
> > > developers and shouldn't presume to be.
> >
> > i mostly agree but wouldn't put it anywhere near that strongly.
> I would. Ben's phrasing strongly reminds me of Robert A. Heinlein;
> especially of the concept of TANSTAAFL and the political system he describes
> in "Starship Troopers", where the right to vote must be earned through a
> tour of duty of public (not necessary military) service.
> In the case of Debian, users do not have the right of vote, but can earn it
> by becoming developers (i.e. by maintaining packages, but also by writing
> documentation, maintaining the website etc.).

I thought it used to be that the website maintainer had no vote and 
that package maintainers only had to subscribe to -devel.  If still 
true, this is not a "earn voting right by public service" system (per 
JHMD's definition) and regular direct feedback between users and 
developers is not actively promoted (per Ben).  What's the official 
word on this now?

I agree with Craig that Ben's view is in the right direction, but is 
worded too strongly.  i.e.: I'm not sure when a user presumed to be a 
developer.  I wonder if someone has been outgrowing hats lately.

David Stern

Reply to: