:: Re: [DNG] Devuan Constitu..?
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: natacha
Date:  
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Subject: Re: [DNG] Devuan Constitu..?
Hi,


On 09/28/2015 08:10 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> Hi natacha,The first four sections look pretty standard.

Yes, it is standard and very minimal, by curiosity, which txt are you
talking about?
> But if you haven't done a fairly accurate assessment of how the
> community actually getswork done, it's highly unlikely that what is
> written about governance will reflect reality.

What is up there is only a draft for possible organisation, and I
agree needs to be grounded on the functioning of the community, this
is actually what this process is about.

Insteadit will confuse and frustrate newcomers, who will be forced to
learn two sets of "rules"-- oneofficial one that's clear yet largely
ineffectual, the other unspoken, complex, and real. (Thereare also
many other problems that can happen from this, but that alone should
be sufficientto be persuasive.

I agree open source communities are quite difficult to integrate, and
it takes time for new comers to understand their modalities, that are
very changing depending on the moment and the internal and even
external dynamics. That's really what makes the beauty and efficiency
of the process and there is no way to regulate this.

On another hand each community exists for a reason and has a specific
identity, Devuan crystallized because of the imposition of systemD in
Debian, and people decided to engage themselves in a new and demanding
process; but it seems that from that point on, a whole new set of
questions appear, and they arise regularly on this mailing list along
the discussions and when people ask for organisation.
how different/similar is Devuan and Devuan organisation, who makes the
decision, what do you want to keep/leave behind, is there a special
spirit, I don't think any of this is Neutral and Helekin translates
many issues in the constitution draft.

natacha

>
> -Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 28, 2015 4:16 AM, natacha
> <natacha@???> wrote:
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Agree Indeed thats the issue, And also the reason why things need
> to be though in a different manner hence not bureaucratic. n.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/28/2015 10:04 AM, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
>> Didn't the Debian Constitution ultimately help in screwing that
>> distro up? Or was it some other bureaucratic device?
>> _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list
>> Dng@???
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWCPdVAAoJEB4vJZJLVJYmUEQP/2umQTfvbvFZFbTDks5qDmBx
> z3OJlLFFpYinsuPzhUJi7oAck6aivLmsMC+tV+mMsKWErwiepv2eePcKdXPe5Z8c
> VNBVdNJxRVUbpRYLU1EKSmP2yJ7ttT8RWY4TKW1AubfiXxOpso6r4h0hHnPwp6p/
> iiqQai6z+k5VFyot2BxJ0s/0tq6boHIECXDI/AAGFXRpvwOSdGk0Ynzmvj60M2x2
> dCezmKs39Rwci3210WezpvR4A4TtcQUmSwV0O1NOywgUYk4EThifQOKttPdleSqL
> uJhbOzaEoWzcyW0HoOOCYkKbz0KmWCrEJYOdWgRoJoGxHjCY92+5wMxIUmBBbQPe
> wwa93cZsXGOsp6SO4myv2Sfrb4C9uSEfg2v4bTtgTkk1wAHgk0CHZKIy4X6GdQqX
> tIl50iVEcQE+19JNkTkJ9bI29mXj5rPIouNvNZVYd4vsnCtWWqlTb1TzAqlyvrIW
> 0RkaqBzlAdSa0KSfoFpQTD5UTD4C0AcYOV39gGC7CPQ8YcavO02R0rAtvJpcaAe5
> 0ccjMx3MfkLHUeSm4vfhtS9R+/TiX1jooABAlEspSAIgWfaVenL1qWBQDzEwT9Rt
> 3Cmvq7lEcK93FYdXmop1i9XIxFJ75ftt634YoNfnPS6Rf18GI8ycaXySaLWtzsf2
> 9fRcR/1YIlvhicXznCjd =tkOk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>
>
>
>