Re: Reforming the NM process
On 21 Apr 2006, Panu Kalliokoski uttered the following:
> My main point is: we would do well to follow the same principle of
> openness everywhere that we do on our mailing lists and BTS. I
> don't think it would hurt Debian. Voting is also a way to make
> contribution, and a much less dangerous one than the ability to send
> mail to a broad-audience mailing list.
This is where we differ. A mail sent is just that -- an
email. Even a package upload can be reverted or superseded, and while
it can be a serious issue, it is reversible. Getting a say in how
the project behaves in the future, or how the foundation documents
are modified -- there lies the core of the project, and anyone who
gets to have a say in it must have demonstrated something more than
mere contribution of free software: commitment, demonstrated
responsibility, and trustworthiness.
In my opinion, voting requires far more responsibility and
judgement than maintaining a bunch of packages.
Real Users are afraid they'll break the machine -- but they're never
afraid to break your face.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C