> >On Feb 3, 2007, at 15:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> This is a key difficulty. Almost all people are here for the code, >>> not for the governance. But when any community grows beyond the size >>> of a circle of friends, there's a responsibility for governance. >> >> Right; so I don't think the non-involvement in governance is anything >> to go by; "those who can do, those who can't govern" (paraphrased) > >I disagree. By choosing to be part of a self-governing open source >community, participation in governance becomes a given. A community >this size working on a code-base this size and wanting to use a >democratic process doesn't get the option to ignore non-code issues. >And rule-by-the-loudest-voice is not democracy (even if it pretends >to be in certain countries). So once again I come back to the >question; what practical approach do we collectively propose instead? >The Constitution does not cover this yet.
Part of the governing has to do with how code is contributed and how the "values of the community" are maintained; coders are interested in that. But I can imagine that many people aren't really interested in the nuts and bolts of the constitution until such point that it hurts them. Programmers just want to be left alone and work; they care about governance when it interferes; not before. Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
