Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > >> - What is the process for overthrowing representatives? > >> Example: Eric goes insane and decides that Darcs should be > >> rewritten in Emacs Lisp, > > Now, now. Please choose TECO, SNOBOL, or C++ next time.
I know what's wrong with Emacs Lisp ;-) but what's wrong with SNOBOL? > >> (This process might just be "well, fork it".) > > Note that most successful changes in leadership were done by > forking (X.Org, EGCS). I don't think there's such a thing as a > graceful overthrow mechanism. XEmacs has done it several times since the fork from Emacs. We've since had two forks I can remember. One (UTF-2000) was very graceful; the forker decided he didn't care if his code segfaulted occasionally since it was used mostly by his (linguistic) research colleagues. The other was also reasonably graceful though preceded by some fireworks, but it was inevitable (the sticking point was removing all traces of Windows code from XEmacs, which the forker knew we weren't going to do). On the other hand, on several occasions we've had maintainers who got a life (a wife, a kid, drinking problems, whatever) and went AWOL. The maintainers in question weren't particularly graceful about stepping down, but the project recovered smoothly. I don't think there was much to be done for the maintainers (and I know the maintainer side from experience since I've been neglecting things I really should do for XEmacs for about a year now, but unfortunately there's nobody interested in deposing me at the moment ;-). > I would personally be opposed to codyfing such a mechanism. If the > leadership is overthrown, Note that we're not necessarily talking about overthrowing the leadership. The oversight committee's role is currently limited to changing the representative of the project to the Conservacy. It could very well be that the leadership is overthrowing its servant. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
