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

Re: Debian Weekly News - November 28th, 2006

Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> wrote:
> Bill's apparently under the impression that Debian has either a
> legislative or an executive branch that exists and wields some power,
> and this idea has apparently made him grumpy.  It's good for all of us
> that this idea doesn't actually exist.

In a way, it does, whether or not you agree with it: DPL+most
delegates are the executive, DDs are the legislative, secretary+some
cttes are the authority, but that is a view not agreed by all and I've
seen it debated on-list since at least 2002.  Another way of viewing
debian's governance is a democracy / guild / do-ocracy split (which I
think appears in Biella Coleman's dissertation).

It seems unhelpful to simply deny those views, as it's usually pretty
clear what is meant.  In the other world-view above, Bill Allombert
seems unhappy with the guild deciding things previously done byq the
democracy.  Has that got better or worse since Vancouver?  Did
Vancouver mark a structural change?  I've not seen many good studies
and surveys of debian recently, after a gaggle around 2004, some of
which are linked from http://people.debian.org/~mjr/surveys.html

Anyone feel like answering the point instead of abusing the viewer?

Hope that explains,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: