On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 05:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 05:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 15:00 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > > > > > 3. Process and democracy are not a replacement for strong leadership. > > "process and democracy" are means to establish "an accepted leadership"! > > > > I.e. a "strong leadership" will only work, if it is "accepted by the > > anonymous masses". This where I feel Fedora leadership has always had > > and still has deficits. > > Could you provide examples of this where more than just one or two vocal > people opposed something and it was done anyway? I cannot recall such a > time, but if there is one it would be important to use as an example to > learn from. Why am I not really surprised about his answer? A successful "strong leadership" in a system run by volunteers, implies "leadership to provide guidance to the public" and "leadership to achieve acceptance by the public". So far, this has not taken place. Instead, Fedora has a leadership system, which is widely being ignored by the public, unless it interferes with individual contributor interests. Ralf _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
