Hi, >>"Bear" == Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bear> On the other hand, proportional (or corporate) democracies can be Bear> remarkably stable. In the case of Debian, a pretty straightforward Bear> democracy can be implemented by voting by "shares," where one share == Bear> one package. You could also weigh shares by category; e.g., an essential Bear> package is worth 5 shares, an optional package is worth 2 shares and Bear> an "extra" package is only worth one. Prolificity is a remarkably bad metric of competence too. We need not only people who do the work, we also need to give importance to the quality of work performed. Cookie cutter packages should not count as a large complex package does --- however, I am suspisious of simplistic metrics like this. I figure that peole who do the work, and are competent, would be paid more attention to during a discussion. And hence may influence a vote. I may bge all wet though, and extremely vocal people like me may well over whelm discussions. In any case, no one has really proposed a participatory democracy for Debian. The proposal is for a project leader, and delegates of that authority, and really, developers maintain full editorial control over their packages. There are checks and balances instituted for all the powers, but by no means is it an athenian democracy. I am off to play zangband. manoj -- We're here to give you a computer, not a religion. attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]