> -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki G�lc� [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:33 PM > > > At 19:02 07.01.2002 +0100, you wrote: > >> Being PMC chair isn't going to help solve any problems because of > >> our system of checks and balances. > > > >I just love "checks and balances". > >It is the least perfect system except for all the others already tried. > > Did you know that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention > of 1787 were fearful of "popular rule" and hence the convoluted > way for electing the US President? See Article 2, Section 1, > Clauses 2 and 3 of the US Constitution. Amendment 12 changed the > election system such that the people of a state voted directly > for the electors instead of the state legislatures selecting the > electors. The current system is still somewhat outdated as the > recent Presidential elections have shown. > > I am bringing this up because fear of popular rule is deeply > ingrained in our psyches. This was so in 1787, still is in 2001. > > Anyway, I am not suggesting we create a system of checks and > balances with judges, legislature and an executive. Jakarta is > too small for that. Jakarta is much more like a software company > then a nation. It should be run as such. Jakarta committers can > be viewed as the shareholders of Jakarta.
Neither I. I am just defending "popular rule", as imperfect as it is, as the best system. And also defending the "checks and balances" that avoid any minority of taking advantage of some hole in the rules to subvert that "popular rule". Of course that I am pushing the envelope comparing Apache's system with a democracy - which it is not and should not become. I just find that the current meritocracy system works quite well. It is not perfect, but I believe that enforcing too much strictness would be counterproductive. As Sam, I see clear signs of progress. Self organization is slowly happening. We all want the same - we just need some time to find a way to achieve we all believe in, which is sometimes a slow trial and error process. Knowing well some "pseudo-organizized" companies (having worked with some in the past) makes me quite sure of this. Organizations with less discipline often end up being much more productive. If forcing someone to work in a way he/she does not believe in (especially in software development) is so inefficient in the corporate world, where labor is paid, imagine what would happen here. Spending more time to achieve agreement trough trial and error is a small price to pay for the stronger synergies that can be reached later. Guidance / coaching / "evangelism" and improved communication channels can be very useful to make convergence faster, but a heavy hand will just produce an empty "community". > ... > vested in the general assembly, that is the assembly of > shareholders. The same holds true in the rest of Europe and most > probably in the US and the rest of the world as well. > > We are all volunteers. Thus, it is impossible to dictate to > Apache developers. However, they can be convinced, cajoled or > gently pressured. Peer pressure is extremely effective but > requires consensus. Consensus about the community's will, not > your or my will, but the larger group's will, can be achieved as > a result of a vote. > > In short: We vote. We get a decision about what we want. We > implement what we want. > > Does it make sense? Regards, Ceki Of course! Have fun, Paulo Gaspar -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
