Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>]

This is not a meritocracy it's a popularity.  Someone can do a lot of
work but still not get nominated or voted in if they are not liked by
the majority.  Also with a small a group as we have it can be a good old
boy system as well.  Though some of this could be from past things I
have been involved with as well.

CuZnDragon
Robin Cook

On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 17:17 -0700, Seth Woolley wrote:
> If I may add how I think of the issue:
> 
> The general developers position was intended for those who have asked 
> not to have to vote on things to maintain their developer status.  They 
> just want to develop.  Generally most people who want to vote will 
> become a "Lead Developer".  The bar isn't very high to become a Lead 
> Developer.  It is also an area where people can contribute but not have 
> the full right to vote -- so they earn it.  The model is "developer 
> meritocracy" (intended to balance the two concepts), not democracy.
> 
> It's worthwhile to note that an organization of voluntary individuals 
> should buttress itself against hostile takeovers.  Not all takeovers are 
> malicious, but by doing this the leadership that exists now can maintain 
> a set of principles despite unpopularity effectively.  Organizations 
> that are founded on a set of principles instead of merely being 
> "democratic" should restrict the franchise (input/power that changes the 
> system, such as voting).  In the actual political sphere, where you 
> aren't voluntarily born (in a Rawlsian sense), the franchise should be 
> as wide as possible, as in governments.
> 
> When we become large enough that we have to worry about being a force of 
> oppressive power where people won't have a choice but to use our 
> operating system and a Rawlsian philosophy takes over, then yes, a 
> representative system is weak.  I dislike the representative system for 
> matters of politics as well, but for small, non-governmental 
> organizations that desire to stay around for longer than a short, 
> single-issue grassroots movement, you have to create some sense of a 
> status quo for things to maintain some semblance of constancy.
> 
> Seth
> 
> Robin Cook wrote <<EOF
> Don't particularly care for the representative system that the USA uses
> either.
> 
> And just because someone is not popular or whatnot to get voted a lead
> developer even though they may do a lot of work on Sourcemage their vote
> should count.
> 
> You don't define super majority and is not defined on the apache web
> page.
> 
> Also this is not a representative system as lead developers have an
> unlimited term and as long as they are liked by the majority of the
> other lead developers there is no way to remove them.
> 
> If the general developers votes are not going to count then all lead
> developers should be able to be removed by a majority vote of the
> general developers as well so that there is recourse for going against
> the majority of the general developers.
> 
> CuZnDragon
> Robin Cook
> 
> On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 17:36 -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
>  > On Apr 17, Robin Cook [rcook AT wyrms.net] wrote:
>  > > I have no problem with most of it except having no binding vote in the
>  > > issues voting if not a lead developer.
>  >
>  > This is the way it is today (no one gets a binding vote in non-lead
>  > elections except for the leads) and is typical of most 
> representative-type
>  > political systems.  ie, depending on where you live you typically elect
>  > your representative and then they go off and vote on your behalf.  If 
> they
>  > do a good job you keep electing them, if not you throw them out.
> EOF

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part