Hi,
>>"David" == David Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And if we did collectively wish to be
>> self destructive, who has the right to stop us?
David> Perhaps the users we are supposedly trying to serve.
Shades of old arguments. For the record, I am not really doing
this to ser
There were many fine messages in today's discussion so I'll try to be
brief. If you don't want to read the whole, at least please read the
end.
On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 10:18:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And I think if we need such leadership, we may as well pack
> our bags and go
On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 02:31:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> b) we neeed to release more often, and on schedule
> (I like guys proposal of an updated stable pool that can be
> tested continuuls, frozen, and released fast -- since there are
> never any release critical bugs i
On 3 Jun 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> b) we neeed to release more often, and on schedule
> (I like guys proposal of an updated stable pool that can be
> tested continuuls, frozen, and released fast -- since there are
> never any release critical bugs in the stable pool, the c
Hi,
>>"Bear" == Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bear> On the other hand, proportional (or corporate) democracies can be
Bear> remarkably stable. In the case of Debian, a pretty straightforward
Bear> democracy can be implemented by voting by "shares," where one share ==
Bear> one pa
> On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:17:15AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> > Democracy would give the majority the feeling that they have the right to
> > tell the few what to do, which they absolutely do not have.
>
> That is the major falling of every democracy[...]
There are many different types of
On 3 Jun 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dale> We must recognise two things:
>
> Dale>1. Debian functions as a "Goal Oriented Anarchy".
> Dale>(Bruce called it "Herding Cats")
>
> Dale>2. The only
On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 12:59:50PM -0500, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
> > No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.
>
> I would go a step further and say democracy is always inefficient, in
> fact it is "inefficiant by design"
Indeed, there is a reason why in the US a republic was formed by
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since people want to discuss goals, let us get this over and
> done with. Email me goals, and I promise to have a 100 by the
> weekend. Then maybe we can get off and try and actually *DO*
> something, like design and implementation, rather than
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> We must recognise two things:
Dale> 1. Debian functions as a "Goal Oriented Anarchy".
Dale> (Bruce called it "Herding Cats")
Dale> 2. The only reason it is functional is that all the cats have the
Dale> same goals
On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:17:15AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> [
> This post is a on the long side, and probably not of interest to many
> (sorry).
> It comes up with the conclusion that Debian and Democracy don't mix.
> ]
yes it is long...as such I wont quote it all :)
> > Why? Because
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 11:17:15 BST Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > David> Voting by developers should be limited to the election and
> > David> recall of leaders and the ratification of amendments.
> >
> > Why? Because even though we do all the work, the masses are
> > too dumb
On 3 Jun 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Philip> No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.
>
> Inefficient or not, if it is the only thing that works ...
>
As Philip and others have pointed out, that is as feable an
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.
Inefficient or not, if it is the only thing that works ...
Philip> We developers are not under anyone's power, since we can
Philip> always do our own thing, or leave th
[
This post is a on the long side, and probably not of interest to many (sorry).
It comes up with the conclusion that Debian and Democracy don't mix.
]
> David> Voting by developers should be limited to the election and
> David> recall of leaders and the ratification of amendments.
>
>
Hi,
>>"David" == David Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Rather, my point is that strong leadership is needed to help
David> keep everyone focused and the project on course in the future.
And I think if we need such leadership, we may as well pack
our bags and go home, for it is
On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 12:35:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> David> Reread some of my earlier messages. I firmly believe that a
> David> lack of strong leadership has been one of the biggest
> David> contributing factors in Debian's inability to put out timely
> David> releases.
>
>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am interested in something way more fundamental to the project than
> the mere next release. Unless we thing beyond the next quarter, and
> if we fail to make more or less radical changes, we are doomed to
> repeat the pattern of past releases.
Y
--On Tue, Jun 2, 1998 9:35 am +0100 "Enrique Zanardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Also due to the big number of developers and "sub-projects" inside of
> the Debian project, it's hard to follow how every sub-project is going on
> (what's going on with
apt/dpkg/boot-floppies/i18n/consistent-keybo
On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 12:35:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The formal SPR's are also a good way of documenting proposals,
> I think that we should archive formal SPR's, and all the amendments
> accepted, etc, so we do not ``forget'' the lofty goals in a few
> months.
Also due to
20 matches
Mail list logo
