On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Bernhard R. Link <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Marc Singer <[email protected]> [090812 03:12]: > > 2009/8/11 Josselin Mouette <[email protected]> > > > > > [deletia] > > > > > > I do not trust a majority of people ? regardless of the people ? to > make > > > an appropriate managerial decision. We have people in charge, who take > a > > > lot of time to remain informed of the status of various subsystems in > > > Debian so that they can make informed decisions. If we replace them by > a > > > majority?s vote, you can expect the decisions to be wrong. > > > > > > > It is also challenging to get a large group of people well enough > informed > > to make a decision worthy of the effort. > > While it is challenging to inform a large group of people, that is in my > eyes rather a reason to make it a vote: If you do not inform people well > enough so that they would vote for the best solution, they will not > recognize the best solution as that, so they will be unhappy with those > doing the decisions and be frustrated, leaving or working against the > solution. > > So if you cannot get the people affected by the decision to back up the > decision (and if it is only in a way of "X I trust, X said Y") then not > doing a vote is the wrong way to go: Better risk a suboptimal decision > and people supporting that to having decided an optimal solution that > cannot work due to lack of support or even no longer having people doing > the better solutions in charge as noone likes their decisions. > The claim that "...noone [sic] likes their decisions" is hardly defensible. Whether or not there is a GR, the point is that it is difficult to assess the benefit of a recommendation made by the membership as it has everything to do with the question asked and the depth of their knowledge of the issue. Perhaps the fundamental issue is whether or not the membership is willing to trust the decisions of the release managers. Cheers
