On Jan 6, 2007, at 3:06 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
More broadly... Fedora is not a democracy.
Fedora is a meritocracy.
Yes, and it's worth expanding on this. For example, a democracy is
one where people with, say, too much time on their hands are able to
build a community of peers (because most people like to be followed)
and get elected into office based on e.g. the amount of mails the
write and how well they crush their opposition. In a meritocracy we
don't do this, we still let the most competent person (or persons)
make decisions. Of course in some cases it's difficult for outsiders
(who cannot judge, for a given subject matter, who is competent and
who is not) to understand why some decisions are made and some are
not. The day Fedora becomes a democracy is the day I'll contributing
to Fedora.
One issue however that I see with this, is historic lack of inter-
communication between the RH Desktop team and the community.
Not sure what you had in mind (examples?) but it's not exactly true
(which is an understatement) though of course relations between RH
employees and non-RH employees wanting to help out too can be
improved. We always tell people to help out upstream; the only
patches we carry are for defaults really. It's just like the kernel,
we tell Fedora people to hack on kernel.org kernels.
David
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
