On 3/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To be a meritocracy, more than the already elected committers would have > > to participate in the election. > > > I'll be fascinated to watch you try to sell that approach to Apache at large > :-).
As I'm not a meritocracy evangelist, whether Apache agrees with me or not is not that important. I only called attention to an assertion that distorted the plain meaning of words. As societies become more intellectually sophisticated, this doublespeak becomes more prevalent. You don't see anybody claiming that they are running their community like a dictatorship; they all claim "democracy", "meritocracy" and what not. But, as they say where I come from, "tell me of what you brag about and I'll tell you what you lack". > Out of the 22 existing committers to Struts, 21 of them followed the "deal > with it" pattern and got voted in But, of course! As it is the only way... According to you, the owners of franchises in the NFL, or the NBA, also run their leagues as a meritocracy, because they follow rules very similar to yours, eh? > That's the way Apache projects work. If you don't like it, you're free to > run your own project, anywhere else you like, according to whatever rules > you see fit. Wow, that's a relief! I thought you were going to forbid me to run my own project, anywhere else I like, according to whatever rules I see fit. >From the way you respond it seems to me that you believe I object to the way your project is run. No, I object to the distortion of calling a meritocracy what is just a run-of-the-mill club. > See above for evidence that an alternative really does exist. Not within your project structure, it doesn't. Which, by the way, is fine with me. Just don't misrepresent it, please. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
