Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill's apparently under the impression that Debian has either a > legislative or an executive branch that exists and wields some power, > and this idea has apparently made him grumpy. It's good for all of us > that this idea doesn't actually exist.
In a way, it does, whether or not you agree with it: DPL+most delegates are the executive, DDs are the legislative, secretary+some cttes are the authority, but that is a view not agreed by all and I've seen it debated on-list since at least 2002. Another way of viewing debian's governance is a democracy / guild / do-ocracy split (which I think appears in Biella Coleman's dissertation). It seems unhelpful to simply deny those views, as it's usually pretty clear what is meant. In the other world-view above, Bill Allombert seems unhappy with the guild deciding things previously done byq the democracy. Has that got better or worse since Vancouver? Did Vancouver mark a structural change? I've not seen many good studies and surveys of debian recently, after a gaggle around 2004, some of which are linked from http://people.debian.org/~mjr/surveys.html Anyone feel like answering the point instead of abusing the viewer? Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
