Re: GNOME Enhancement Procedure

On 19Jun2001 11:40PM (+0500), Dan Winship wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2001 13:25:49 -0500, Chema Celorio wrote:
> > > > Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org> writes: 
> > > > > First, even though I think we do need some kind of more formal
> > > > > process, this one sounds a bit too bureaucratic for my tastes what
> > > > > with all the rules and regulations.
> > 
> > I second Maciej here, this is not how Free Software works.

Chema, I don't think you're seconding me because that's not what I was
saying. I think GNOME _does_ need a better process for making
decisions with more global impact. I wasn't sure how much I liked the
one Havoc proposed. But I think it's an OK starting point. I'll try to
suggest specific improvements. 
> You're right. The way Free Software works is that once a project reaches
> a certain size, you have to have one of:
>     * A benevolent dictator (or dictators) whose decisions everyone
>       accepts
>     * Massive infighting and backstabbing among developers
>     * A fork into two smaller projects

Hmmm, I guess you could say that if you extend the dictator concept
sufficiently to include things like Apache where there is a rotating
elected set of dictators whose decisions everyone accepts (i.e. rule
by committee).

Perl and Python also mostly follow processes similar to what Havoc
described, although in those cases, there is an ultimate dictator with
the ability to make final decisions, although it is rarely used.


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