The Linux kernel is the reason that git was created.. to support /that/ kind of development, however.. Linus Torvalds still has final say as to what gets included in the standard Linux kernel.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds Excerpt 1: "About 2% of the Linux kernel as of 2006 was written by Torvalds himself.[15] Since Linux has had thousands of contributors, such a percentage represents a significant personal contribution to the overall amount of code. Torvalds remains the ultimate authority on what new code is incorporated into the standard Linux kernel.[20]" See: http://wiki.oss-watch.ac.uk/BenevolentDictatorGovernanceModel Excerpt 2: "Perhaps the most commonly cited example of a benevolent dictator model is the Linux Kernel, a project that is under the direct decision-making leadership of Linus Torvalds. The job of benevolent dictator is not an easy one. It requires diplomacy and community-building skills, in-depth technical knowledge of all aspects of the project, and a level of commitment and dedication that is often hard to find. However, as the Linux Kernel project illustrates, it can be a very effective governance model. This document describes the kind of governance model adopted within this and similar projects. " Excerpt 3 : Linux for Dummies 8th edition (Wiley Publishing Inc 2007) ISBN: 978-0-470-11649-4, page 15, chapter 1: "Who's in charge of Linux Anyway? As an open source project evolves, various people emerge as the leaders. This leader is often known as the project's benevolent dictator. A person who becomes benevolent dictator has probably spent more time then anyone else on a particular problem and often has some unique insight. Normally, the words democratic and dictator are never paired in the same sentence, but the open source model is a very democratic process that endorses the reigh of a benevolent dictator. Linus Torvalds is still considered the benevolent dictator of the Linux kernel (the operating system's core). He ultimately determines what features are added to the kenrel and what features aren't. THe community trusts his vision and discretion. In the event that he looses interest in the project or the community decides that he has gone senile, a new leader will emerge from amongst the very competent people working with him." In conclusion, the quote was not out of context. This type of community is alive and well /currently/ in the Linux kernel. Git was developed for use in the Linux kernel, and therefore, it isn't the source control system that dictates the community. Regards Teravus On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Edward Middleton <[email protected]> wrote: > Frisby, Adam wrote: >> I disagree. >> >> * Commit Rights - those discussions cannot occur in public (although the >> discussion archives are open to committers after being invited), the reason >> for this is no-one can be frank & honest without hurting people's feelings. >> >> --- >> From the excellent F/OSS guidebook: >> http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#electorate >> "The voting system itself should be used to choose new committers, both full >> and partial. But here is one of the rare instances where secrecy is ... > > I think the quote is a bit out of context, the book was released in 2005 > when most people were using centralized version control systems CVCS > like subversion. I can understand making a big deal about commit access > (or rights if you want to put it that way) when you are working with a > CVCS because it is pretty constraining to work it, but aren't you > moving/have moved to a DVCS[1] (i.e. git) where having commit access to > the central repository is something more akin to being the release manager. > > Edward > > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_revision_control > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
