From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Feb 4 15:24:59 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6259A37B401 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:24:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from scrooge.etek.chalmers.se (scrooge.etek.chalmers.se [129.16.32.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D156843F85 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:24:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from b@etek.chalmers.se) Received: from scrooge.etek.chalmers.se (b@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scrooge.etek.chalmers.se (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h14NOnca082704 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:24:49 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from b@etek.chalmers.se) Received: from localhost (b@localhost) by scrooge.etek.chalmers.se (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id h14NOmbK082701 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:24:49 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: scrooge.etek.chalmers.se: b owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:24:48 +0100 (CET) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Magnus_B=E4ckstr=F6m?= To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dillon@'s commit bit: I object In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204110551.00c54680@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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