Jeff King <> writes:

> So there are no hard rules, and this is not a democracy[1]. For the most
> part the community runs itself in an open and collective fashion, and
> the dictator's job is easy; but ultimately, he or she is in charge of
> what gets applied and what doesn't. Rules like "break ties in favor of
> reviewers" are just a guideline for the dictator to use in making
> decisions.
> I do not think any of that is news to you, but I think the point needs
> to be made, as it applies to any concrete rules.

My original draft had "I am hoping we do not have to come to that"
after "(I heard some communities break ties this way)", but I
removed it by mistake.

And I think you are right. I also am hoping that I am being fair to
dictate ;-)

> -Peff
> [1] Note that I think a benevolent dictator is a _terrible_ way to run a
>     real government, but it works in an open source project. I think the
>     difference is that dictatorship is open to abuse of power. In the
>     real world, there is a lot of power to abuse, and it is hard for
>     people to opt out of it. In the open source world, there is not that
>     much power, and if there is a bad dictator everyone can go somewhere
>     else (another project, or even a fork). So while a dictator _can_
>     play favorites, or start deciding which patches to take based on
>     what they had for breakfast, there is a real incentive to remain
>     fair and reasonable.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to