On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:51:21AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:26:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> That would make Debian, at most, a republic, not a democracy. > > > Would you care to elaborate and explain it isn't a democratic republic > > then? > > Debian's delegate system makes it very strongly on the republican side of > things, enough so that I think calling it a democracy is misleading. Yes,
In the sense that in a democracy all decisions are made by vote you're absolutley right of course. > in theory we can elect a DPL who can then rescind any delegation and > appoint someone new, but the levels of indirection involved make that more > in the style of the original US Senate. The point that makes it the most > democratic is the recourse to GR to *overturn* decisions, but most > decisions in the project are not made by vote and shouldn't be. Most > decisions are not even made by elected officials, as we only have one of > those and most of the job of the DPL is cheerleading, financials, > legalities and public relations. > > And whether it's a democratic republic or some other form of hybrid mostly > depends on whether you consider ftp-master to be a delegate position or a > somewhat independent check, a question that I expect would only get firmly > resolved under circumstances that none of us really want to see. Wait a moment, if ftp-master was independant what should we call our structure then? Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]