Re: polarization (Was :Eleven good candidates)

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:58:09PM -0200, Lauris Kaplinski wrote:
> > > But actually, the weirdest thing I get out of this message is the
> > > impression that I am some sort of establishment figure and that the
> > > posting of my list will unfairly bias the minds of many voters.
> > 
> > You are, believe me.
> Let me chime in on the debate here.
> 1) The board is not an arbitrairly governing body.  I mean the board cannot
> and will not be able to force project maintainers to do arbitrary things.
> Thus the real power over any single project will always lie with the actual
> maintainers anyway.

The board's lack of power makes existing election procedure acceptable
(there is little reason to complain, if elections do not change anything)
- but it does not do them DEMOCRATIC.
(Not that I am big fan of democracy - but that is other issue)
> 2) There is no governing clique trying to usurp power from the people.  For
> example me and jacob will still be maintainers of gnome-core no matter who
> wins the elections.  And most likely we will continue to do things the way we
> want to do them in gnome-core no matter who wins the elections.  It will be
> handling things like the current steercom does.

I am quite sure, nobody is afraid of the board of gnome foundation torturing
and executing average hackers at will...
Still - people from outer circles are watching, what happens in inner circles
(and courtyard). And if they do not like, what happens there, they most
probably will walk away silently, instead of trying to change anything.
Keeping them (is anybody want to keep 'em) need quite a lot of good will
from core hackers (here is good place to refer to studlyCaps).

> 3) The "benevolent dictators" that actually control gnome will always be the
> people doing the work.  The board is a different kind of "government" that we
> are electing.  We are not replacing the benevolent dictators over projects
> with some democratic process.  I doubt most maintainers would agree to be
> controlled by public vote.

The problem is not wrong people being elected. The problem is procedures
being not generally accepted - and that piss people away.

> 4) Even in democratic countries the ruling party is also allowed to campaign.
> Though, given points #1 - #3, that shouldn't be an issue in the first place.

As I said - if there is real power at stake, there are usually different
powerful groups involved. If there is only one powerful political group,
we cannot meaningfully talk about elections.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]