On 3/20/07, Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Instead, Fedora has a leadership system, which is widely being ignored > by the public, unless it interferes with individual contributor > interests. Isn't that basically how governments work? The *real* question: when the Fedora leadership (government) interferes with the interests of the individual contributor (citizen) -- which is, of course, inevitable -- does the individual contributor (citizen) have meaningful recourse?
That is one question you could ask. The other question you could ask is what tools government can use to convince the contributor to accept the interference, while still contributing. The tools could include strong community norms/peer pressure; this is where Debian fails- their community norm is that you should discuss the thing to death. Everyone is afraid to say 'STFU and code, or STFU and go away.' There is no strong leadership which feels empowered to say 'OK, we've discussed it, discussion is done, we're acting now.' Probably I'm overreacting about the specific issue of release dates (given my biases there). The core question I wanted to ask is how does Fedora say to contributors 'we love you, we love your ideas, but we apologize- we have to move on. So kindly please STFU so we can get on with our core business of _________.' Debian seems socially incapable of doing that; it would be a shame if in the name of democracy/deliberation Fedora went down the same route. Luis _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
