From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 02:10:56 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6623616A4CE for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:10:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from web53901.mail.yahoo.com (web53901.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.36.211]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E76B243D3F for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:10:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from stheg_olloydson@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 69768 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Feb 2005 02:10:55 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=6hVxsbFKqp7+QcR8uxp38t+VaIxWYoA72FxRgCwVREaUQbX7JbOrv5qK4ofISPSLTzlHt/PodP/iDFV/cug2AUMe+FcDieDNXWHv8puNFgLh41RwrV1mXZ2feb4qn7YhbGUnXSCvTxjof0W3fS9xYAoRD7pbaHA8TAA6wfnwq4Y= ; Message-ID: <20050213021055.69766.qmail@web53901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.18.10.190] by web53901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:10:55 PST Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:10:55 -0800 (PST) From: stheg olloydson To: kris@obsecurity.org In-Reply-To: <20050213004204.GA91920@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The only worthwhile logo-related comments so far.... X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:10:56 -0000 --- Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 04:16:21PM -0800, stheg olloydson wrote: > > > P.S. My agreement with Mr. Sm?rgrav's argument should not be > construed > > as agreeing with what many (me included) perceive as the sneaky way > > this issue has been handled. Based on the comments from the few > > commiters that made comments on this topic, a discussion took place > > among the commiters who then unilaterally made the decision. > > Sorry, but that's how the FreeBSD project works and always has > worked. > The FreeBSD Core team has always decided policy for the FreeBSD > project, and they can handle it any way they like, including making > unilateral decisions with consulting with the FreeBSD user base. For > better or worse, FreeBSD is not a democracy of users - if you thought > otherwise then you were just mistaken. > > Kris > Hello, Core being Core will do what they think is best, and they have every right to. That's not my point. My point is the discussion took place in secret. What I am suggesting is that when certain discussions take place that they be publicly readable. The US and UK (other countries too, I'm sure) have television cameras in their legislative chambers so those who are interested can hear pro and con arguments on some issues by those making the decisions. The legislators certainly don't take calls from the viewers - although sometimes I wish they would ;). Obviously, mundane discussions about "network performance should be optimized first - no disk i/o should be first" don't need to be public; but those about Project policy ought to be. You could even obscure who is making which argument if you want to protect those taking unpopular positions. After all, there already is a (utterly empty) policy@ list. As you say, FBSD isn't a "democracy of users" (thankfully), and doing this won't change that. It will, however, allow users to mull over the different arguments among themselves (hopefully on something like opinions@ and not a useful list such as questions@). Best regards, Stheg __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com