Re: Let's have a vote!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 09/22/2014 at 06:54 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 03:04:24PM +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> writes:
>>
>>> On 2014-09-16 02:00 +0200, lee wrote:
>>>> Shall we have a vote? AFAIK, there's nothing that would
>>>> speak against having one, in this very mailing list. Why not
>>>> ask the users? Why should only Debian developers be allowed
>>>> to vote but not the users?
>
> Users DO get a vote. Every time you download an ISO for debian,
> that's a vote. Every time you install a system as debian, that's a
> vote.
Those are votes for Debian, but not for systemd, or for "Debian with
systemd as central".
In the case at hand, the latter two are what people are asking to be
able to have a vote (or at least meaningful input other than making
noise) on, by virtue of being users who will be affected by the decision
rather than by virtue of doing work to implement the decision.
Now, I can perfectly well see the argument that someone who does do the
work and has proven themselves reliable in that regard should get *more*
of a voice and more of a vote than someone who just demands that things
be done the way they want them.
But for the latter person to be represented only by the voices of those
among the "do the work" group whom they can convince to share their
view, rather than having a direct voice (however disproportionately
smaller) of their own, smacks of "only the people who do the work have
any say in things" - of "what the users think doesn't matter by itself".
Which seems problematic.
- --
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=mxSY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: