Just my two cents?

Ideally speaking, running a project via democracy works. Debian can and does function. The problem with Debian is that those who can vote are a tiny subset of a much larger community with agendas. Thus when it comes down it, a tiny group basically makes decisions for the whole. Most of the time, those decisions are not controversial and accepted without comment.

Unfortunately, the systemd debacle was not, and the vast majority who made comment really did not understand what the hell they are deciding. How many of those individuals actually looked at the systemd codebase and its real world use or fail cases? I’d a semi-educated guess maybe Debian ten developers - at best - really looked at the code or did any form of QA on systemd specifically, even though is the most radical change to the distribution in at least 10 years. The rest took it on popularity, regardless of whether or not it was a bad design decision. Case in point? I do not believe that they tested Jesse without systemd against Jesse with systemd. The decision appears to have been made arbitrarily.

What does this suggest to me? That actual technical core decisions should be in the hands of developers and Quality Assurance who know what they are about. The word for it is called meritocracy. The weight of your opinion is determined by the quality of the work you put into the project.

Until the Devuan development team officially invites others to join the team, our opinions - while respected - are basically irrelevant. We are sitting about chatting, but that doesn’t get Devuan to release.






From: Martinx - ジェームズ
Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎December‎ ‎14‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎00‎ ‎PM
To: dng@???





On 14 December 2014 at 22:48, Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmartinsc@???> wrote:
> Hey guys!
>
> I'm wondering here... Who the hell told that the majority better knows
> which path is the way to go? This is wrong, very wrong.
>
> Every time you see yourself at the majority's side, you must take a
> step back and think about your position with extreme care, for real.
> Democracy is the original attack of the 51%, against the 49%. The
> needs of the many DOES NOT outweigh the needs of the few. This kind of
> thinking make me sick.
>
> Please guys, don't take me wrong, but voting isn't a good decision
> making tool. It stinks.
>
> And it is even worse, when the majority is ignorant. No, I'm not
> talking about Debian Developers, I'm talking about the country I was
> born, so called "Brazil". Here, democracy does NOT work. Since 95% of
> brazilian people are just a bunch of scumbags (that one that can not
> even be used as a fertilizer, they are just useless). Sorry about the
> bad words, but, that is the truth. Sad, but true.
>
> So, democracy doesn't work when the majority sucks. But it might work
> when the majority have education and knowledge. Nevertheless, I still
> think that we can not make decisions by voting.
>
> And here comes the Scientific Method! By far, this is the best tool I
> know to figure out which path is a better way to go. We need to test
> and test almost all of the alternatives and then, make a decision
> based on observation, based on a "real world" results.
>
> We need to be able to reproduce everything! Every single procedure
> must be reproductible, since its creation.
>
>
> For example: How to fork Debian?
>
> This is something that needs to be very well documented. Step by step,
> then, we can test it millions of times, until it becomes perfect...
> And this is just an example... That I would like to talk in a
> dedicated thread later.
>
>
> Lets use the science to help us make better decisions?!
>
> Lets not make decisions based on "administrative shit"? I mean, Devuan
> can not use
> "administrative decision making". Like this:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00534.html
>
> I wish for Devuan: technical sanity.
>
> Crossing finger to see Joey joining us!
>
> Nevertheless, I still believe that constitutions and technical
> committees are good in some level but, it can not be "top down".
> Today, for example, Debian Technical Committee totaly lost its
> purpose, and it is very ugly, they think the are "the boss" (or
> something like that, which sucks). We can not do the same mistakes
> Debian is doing. Otherwise, we'll become what Debian is today, really
> fast.
>
> What do you guys think about this?
>
> Cheers!
> Thiago

BTW, I would like to put one more point into this subject:

Linus is the Linux's technical leader, he is almost a benevolent
dictator. And Linux is one of the most amazing projects of our time! I
trust him, I know him personally, we drink a caipirinha here in Sao
Paulo few years ago, he is an amazing human being!

I know that these days, Linus almost never write codes, he just lead,
like an orchestral conductor... And Linux development follows a stable
line.

I'm not saying that Devuan should have a leader, no, but instead, we
need to figure out a better tool / procedure / whatever, for decision
making, that does not involves voting.

Best!
Thiago
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@???
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng