Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:24:48 +0100 (CET) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Magnus_B=E4ckstr=F6m?= <b@etek.chalmers.se> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dillon@'s commit bit: I object Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0302050024180.82664-100000@scrooge.etek.chalmers.se> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204110551.00c54680@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 10:56 AM 2/4/2003, Magnus B{ckstr|m wrote:
>
> >I would consider a more open governance to be harmful.
>
> Most (if not all) failures in governance are created or
> sustained by secrecy.
Secrecy as such isn't much of a factor; what you say is true
as far as it covers the ubiquitous case that a failing government
(or management, which better names what we are discussing)
implements secrecy to cover its failure.
In the case where a -working- management (governance) uses it,
the word more used is perhaps 'discretion'.
> >"Those most involved" need to be developers; they are the only ones
> >investing anything in the project
>
> Nonsense. System administrators, documentors, and users engaged
> in advocacy also have large investments and must be represented.
If they (we) have a large investment, it's their (our) own risk.
Sure it's nice to be represented; but do it by the rules. My regret
in the matter is that my organisation is difficult to press into
contributing back anything of even a fraction of the value received.
> The limitation of voting to those with "commit bits" creates an
> extreme bias toward those with their heads down and/or those
> with egos heavily invested in their code; it also increases the
> likelihood that "real world" factors will not be considered.
You're missing something here: "Value". I'm convinced that if I
need some functionality, there is something as simple as a price
tag attached to it. Whether I hire a consultant (who may
concievably be one or more of the current committers) or get a
project approved within my own organisation, it ends in a figure
of money.
I might also be able to argue a case before the developer community
that the particular functionality would be terrifically valuable
to the project we live for -- in which case the developers would
be paying, with their own or someone else's time.
Thus you are correct only as far as those "real world" factors are
both important (e g to the long-term viability of the project) and
not likely to be considered valuable by the developer community.
> It is one of the reasons why FreeBSD receives so little press
> and so little corporate support relative to Linux. Advocacy,
> a crucial part of any such project, is not valued.
I won't argue this, only offer a counterguess: Linux gets it
because of "hype". (I won't offer a definition)
Magnus
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.44.0302050024180.82664-100000>