Hi Nomen, Nomen Nescio wrote: > Taylor, how do you propose to build this consensus you're talking about > on the name change? I'm glad you're interested in learning more about the Git development process! There are some open source projects that function (mostly) as a democracy --- they build the features that those voting request. A famous example of this would be PHP[1]. There is something admirable about that approach, but it is not always easy to get right. Many other projects have their own approaches to governance. In Git, we make most decisions by a rough consensus of active contributors, as judged by the maintainer. There are times that consensus may go in a direction that is unworkable, and the maintainer has the ability to make a different decision during those times. If decision making ever goes off the rails (perhaps you've judged this to be such a moment!), users of Git have the recourse of forking the code; such moments have happened in some open source projects in the past, for the better, such as the EGCS fork of GCC that was widely used by distributors and eventually became the standard version of GCC. If you are looking to have more influence in the Git project, my advice would be to become a respected contributor, by providing patches, well thought out reviews, documentation improvements, advice to bug reporters, or other contributions. As others learn to trust your feedback, you will have more influence on consensus. Even better, you get the immediate benefit of your own work as soon as you do it. I believe Taylor was also interested in another kind of consensus, between hosting providers, but that would be likely to coincide with what the Git project does so the difference is a bit academic. [...] > slacktivism This is a very weird way to describe the people who are spending their time to maintain Git. Thanks and hope that helps, Jonathan [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/821821/
