[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

From: nylxs
Subject: Re: A summary of some open discussions
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:05:46 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1

I've been watching Debian for nearly 30 years ...

I know exactly hwo it work and it is top down

On 1/8/20 12:30 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Fixing some facts here.
> nylxs, le mer. 08 janv. 2020 10:19:26 -0500, a ecrit:
>> On 1/8/20 4:37 AM, Andreas Enge wrote:
>>>> All volunteer organizations are top down, even Debian...
>>> That is clearly wrong, and well documented for Debian.
>> Actually it is correct.  Debian has governance and although it has
>> elections and it is clearly top down
> You don't seem to have any idea how Debian actually works.
>> It is designed with project leaders on top
> Not really. There is a project leader, but in practice the leader has
> little impact in everyday work: one can create webpages, wikis, new
> services etc. at will.
>> when systemD was adopted,
> The systemd question was not about adoption (adding it to the archive
> was really not a concern), but about whether to make it a default/only
> choice.  Which is a collective concern, and thus was discusssed
> collectively. The leader can help the discussion to happen but in the
> end it's a vote which settled what the community wanted to do.

Only if the "community" is top down the governance.

>> people were shocked that Debian can have coercive authority
> It was not a question of coercion, but to decide collectively which way
> we go. Which is what being part of a community is all about. Yes, it
> means that people have to follow what was decided. That's also what a
> community is about.
>> and they broke off and forked over distros
> Yes, that's unfortunate, but that can't be helped with. Different goals,
> thus different projects.
>> [Debian] could NEVER do what GNU does because it gives too much power
>> to the project leaders
> ?? GNU gives *way* more power to its leader than Debian does to its
> leader.

No - Debian gives too much power to the individual project leaders, not
the Debian Debian leader.

>> the Debian Technical Committee can, in the end, overule and govern
> No. It only settles a disagreement between two developers. It does not
> govern, it just breaks ties. It is used as less as possible, only when
> discussion didn't work in the end.
>> the entire OS.
> Certainly not the entire OS. I have been for instance working in the
> accessibility team completely the way I wanted, creating whatever
> repositories, wikis, giving commit access like I wanted. At some point
> there was interaction with other pieces of the OS, so discussion was
> needed, and they happened directly with the corresponding teams. It
> never went through the technical committee or leader. It would only have
> been on an unsolved disagreement that we would have had to resort to the
> technical committee.

which is one reason Debian continues to suck.  They wait for people to
just do things, and then they complain, discuss and then they make a top
down decision.

I don't want this garbage approach for GNU.

All Volunteer organizations are top down.  Maybe not the French
Communist party, or the 99% movement, but all the rest of them.

>> Meanwhile, go volunteer at the American Museum of Natural History and
>> see if you can move the T-Rex around...
>> Good luck with that.
> Which, to my opinion, is not a good thing. 

It is a ***GREAT*** thing, as a fact, anyone else's opinion not
withstanding.  It means that the leadership is responsible 100% for the
direction of the institution, and it assures real standards.  It
prevents a hostile takeover by flat-earthers.  It allows for diving into
controversial issues without having to worry about internal blow back
from within.

Nobody should want be part of an organization where the mice can take
over the boat.  GNU is lead by, created by, and the vision of Richard M
Stallman as a platform for his explicit political and educational goals.

If someone can't live with those goals, and that leadership, then they
__need__ to leave.

It's OK.  Really, it is.  There is Microsoft you can work for, or some
open source something or other program... or if you love it so much...
work for Debian.  Libreboot?  Are they in or out of GNU this week?
Gnome?  Ximinan?  OpenSuse?  Caldera

Wikipedia is perfect for your aspirations.

Nobody will hate you any __more__ for it.  You are being invited,
baited, goated, to just pick up and leave GNU and do your own thing.

Like Mork from Ork said... Fly -  Be Free
 > Organizations which can't
> evolve go extinct.

That is a meaningless catchall statement to justify slandering Richard
and trying to take GNU from him.  It is not acceptable in an adult

>> Go tell Linus Tovalds how to run the Linux Kernel... see how fa you get
> Linus gives a lot of delegation. 

So does Richard.

> In the end he is the last merge point,
> but he completely trusts direct subtree maintainers, who can work the
> way they wish.

No he does not.  He squashes many disputes and intervenes at will into
anything he wants...a lot more than RMS does, as a matter of fact.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]