Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - [SM-Discuss] [Fwd: Re: project organization] sorry didn't do list reply...

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>
  • To: Source Mage - Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [SM-Discuss] [Fwd: Re: project organization] sorry didn't do list reply...
  • Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:04:35 -0500

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page