Re: Getting to Topaz (Was Re: getting on a longer release cycled)
- From: Maxim Udushlivy <maxim udushlivy gmail com>
- To: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- Cc: Iain * <iaingnome gmail com>, Pat Suwalski <pat suwalski net>, desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Getting to Topaz (Was Re: getting on a longer release cycled)
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:33:57 +0400
Havoc Pennington wrote:
I think the best shot at this would be to gather a small group that
agrees on some audience they want to try and do stuff for, and just
start doing it; I'm not sure how the overall GNOME boat can be turned up
front, it's probably not possible. The small group would have to be
prepared for potentially large divergence from the existing
gnome-panel/nautilus/etc. desktop codebase - they would need to be open
to doing very different things either instead or in addition, if that
made sense to provide the benefits to the audience.
"...gather a small group" - this reminds the infamous lack-of-leadership
Gnome problem (at least from the outsider perspective)
I was once lurking around planet.gnome.org and there was an interesting
accident. One guy said about Israel that "it is evil" and another (Jeff
Waugh?) was trying to moderate him.
One Russian philosopher said that the government should not lead people
to heaven. Instead it must prevent them to fall into hell. That accident
hinted me an interesting solution to Gnome leadership problem.
From the business point of view the majority of foss projects
(including successful) are in a strange state that may be called as a
"permanent crisis". When something is in a crisis, who is needed?
Anti-crisis manager! So, some (if not majority) foss projects instead of
leaders need permanent anti-crisis management. This is especially true
for Gnome due to a nature of its community - a union of several
development groups who cannot fully unite because they develop different
applications (at least I see it this way). It seems that Gnome is like a
country with several political parties, but if Gnome is meritocracy this
country does not need traditional government that is elected by
Now to the point. Every society needs some mechanism to protect itself
from falling into hell. For example, on many public forums there is a
special position that is called Moderator. As I said, Gnome is not
suitable for traditional form of leadership, so the most logical way to
keep order here is to introduce a position of Moderator, an anti-crisis
manager. You may call him Gnome Sheriff if you like Westerns as I do.
Gnome Sheriff must be elected by some formal procedure (better by
democratic voting). His main responsibility - moderate mailing lists
from bullshit, destroy crazy ideas before they infect people, protect
project ideology, etc.
I think it is not only useful and fun but will bring some stability and
direction here, won't it?!
] [Thread Prev