Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On 6 Apr 2006, JC Helary uttered the following:
> On 2006/04/06, at 23:18, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
>> Also even if -from an outsiders perspective- the jargon used is
>> quirky and strange. I have to wonder: if one is not even willing to
>> look at the jargon used by the project from the projects point of
>> view. Then why on earth would one be applying to NM-process in the
>> first place? And how on earth would one expect to pass the
>> philosyphy and procedures part of the process?
> Which is the reason why this whole thread started.
> Why is it that active contributors would have to go through all this
> to have a right to vote in the Project Leader's election ?
To build up a sense of trust, and give the project some
assurance that they adhere to the core principles of the project. It
also gives a sense that there is a commitment to the project itself,
not some upstream-or-downstream entity.
> This is what is questioned by people who contribute.
Lots of people contribute to the OS that Debian produces. Not
all of those contributions reflect commitment to the project itself,
or responsibility for an area of Debian, and continued contribution.
> If you dismiss such claims by saying "they just have to wait for 200
> days after having contributed for so long in the dark" it is not
> going to work.
With enfranchisement comes responsibility, and with
responsibility comes the requirement of assurances that the person
can handle the responsibility.
Decision maker, n.: The person in your office who was unable to form a
task force before the music stopped.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C