On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:20:02PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Debian isn't a true democracy. We elect our leader, and thereafter > > the leader acts under his own accord. > > It's a representative democracy, much like the US government. Except > Debian actually works.
If the US only used Condorcet's Method for voting, like Debian does... It would actually make 3rd party candidates viable. > > The recent leaders have generally taken a hands-off approach so you > > probably don't really notice they're even there. However, I believe > > some leaders before my time (Bruce Perens, for example), were much more > > active and took more advantage of their power. > > Do you see this for the better or worse, and if worse, how would you > change it? I think it's just Debian evolving and maturing. A few years back, stronger leaders were needed to help establish what Debian's fundamentals--like the Social Contract, the DFSG... Since Debian is now so well defined, there's not much a leader needs to do to keep Debian going. Most of Debian's remaining problems (overly long release cycles and poor scaling as the number of packages increases) are not something a strong leader could easily solve, unfortunately. -- For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
