Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"David" == David Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 >> And if we did collectively wish to be
 >> self destructive, who has the right to stop us? 

 David> Perhaps the users we are supposedly trying to serve.

Shades of old arguments. For the record, I am not really doing
 this to serve any users. I am doing this cause it pleases my
 muse. The community has some meaning for me, but is vastly
 subservient to my own needs. 

 David> I take it then that you think any volunteer organization should forego
 David> leaders and stop to take a vote whenever a decision needs to be made
 David> just because the volunteers are the ones that actually do the work.

Not quite. But not having a say cause there is a leader wo has
 supreme right does not cut it either.

I think the constitution is a fair compromise. There is a
 project leader, ad he has delegates. There is a project secretary.
 And then there is the tech committee.

But there are checks and balances in place. The structure
 desacribed is by no means a participatory democracy, but the
 developer have other recourse than "leave the project". I have spent
 three years of my life in Debian. I am not going to like leaving the
 project being the only choice I am presented.

 David> As others have already noted, this discussion is diverting attention
 David> from releasing hamm.  So how can we wrap this up and move forward?

My packages do not have release critical bugs. Unfortunately,
 time constraints at the moment prevent me from doing much more than
 submitting bur reports as I find bugs; and reading email during
 compiles. 

manoj
-- 
 A conjecture both deep and profound Is whether a circle is round. In
 a paper of Erdos written in Kurdish A counterexample is found.
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[David Engel]

There were many fine messages in today's discussion so I'll try to be
brief.  If you don't want to read the whole, at least please read the
end.

On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 10:18:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   And I think if we need such leadership, we may as well pack
>  our bags and go home, for it is not going to fly. Charismatic
>  leadership happens. It can not be decreed, or coaxed out of
>  nothingness. So, either we sit around waiting for charismatic
>  leadership to happen to us and lift us out of our doldrums, or we
>  take our destiny into our own hands and do something about it.

I think we have already seen that such leadership is needed.
Furthermore, I believe that there are multiple people already
associated with Debian that can do the job if given the opportunity.

>   We already tried this method. Our erstwhile leader was
>  charismatic, had a vision, had leadership qualities. He was boldly
>  leading us where we had never gone before. He had us all licked into
>  focus. He was providing leadership. And the experiment (pardon me)
>  failed miserably.
> 
>   You know why? Cause the developer did not want to go where he
>  was leading us.

Bruce led Debian for a long time and accomplished many good things.  I
believe he eventually got worn down though (it is a tough job, after
all) and became furstrated and prone to knee-jerk reactions.  It was
time for him to pass the baton.  I hope that even he would agree with
that now that he has had time to regain some perspective.

None of this, however, means that the next leader couldn't do an even
better job.

>   Since the developers do all the hard work, (and believe me,
>  sleep deprivation is not a jke, and many suffer from it), we are not
>  likely to be ``destructive''.

Not intentionally desctructive, but destructive nonetheless.  Me
starting this thread knowing that it would risk further delays in hamm
is only one example.  I only hope that a positive result will make it
worth the pain.

>  And if we did collectively wish to be
>  self destructive, who has the right to stop us? 

Perhaps the users we are supposedly trying to serve.

>   Why? Because even though we do all the work, the masses are
>  too dumb to do their own masters?  We need a all knowing, all
>  powerful group of people to tell us how to act? What cventury are we
>  in now?

I take it then that you think any volunteer organization should forego
leaders and stop to take a vote whenever a decision needs to be made
just because the volunteers are the ones that actually do the work.

On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >  weekend. Then maybe we can get off and try and actually *DO*
> >  something, like design and implementation, rather than sit around
> >  talking goals.
> > 
> Design and implimentation follow goals, not the other way around.
> 
> A discussion requires setting goals and determining just what is necessary
> from each of us to make these goals attainable. 

Right.  We have to know where we want to go before we can decide how
to get there.

On Thu, Jun 04, 1998 at 09:36:54AM +0800, Bill Mitchell wrote:
> I'm that guy, or at least I think I recognize this as a paraphrase of
> something I suggested.  Thanks for the comment. I think such a plan would
> be a considerable improvement over current practice.  I'm a bit 
> disappointed that the suggestion seems to have been passed by
> without very much discussion (not that the debian project needs a lot

I haven't forgotten about your suggestion, Bill.  I'm simply trying to
focus on the bigger issues that need to be resolved first.

On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 10:15:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   Mind you, this is being blown all out of proportion. I am an
>  adherent of the current constitution; and there *is* a project
>  leader, a secretary, and trhere shall be delegates with authority in
>  certain areas. It is not as if things arte constrained to be decided
>  by popular vote. 

This probably is being blown somewhat out of proportion.  Like I said
earlier, however, I think we have some fundamental differences of
opinion on how to run Debian we're just going to have to agree to
disagree (for now).

As others have already noted, this discussion is diverting attention
from releasing hamm.  So how can we wrap this up and move forward?

My suggestion is to table this discussion _and_ any voting on a
constitution until after hamm is released.  Hopefully, we can hash
this all out once and for all then.  I also encourage others to follow
me in asking Brian White (you are still the release coordinator,
right?)  "What can I do to help get hamm out the door?"

David
-- 
David EngelODS Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX  75081


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 02:31:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  b) we neeed to release more often, and on schedule 
>  (I like guys proposal of an updated stable pool that can be
>  tested continuuls, frozen, and released fast -- since there are
>  never any release critical bugs in the stable pool, the current
>  delay does not occur)

FWIW, I'm working on a proposal for this at the moment. I should have
a first draft to mail to people for preliminary comments by tonight or
tomorrow night, and hopefully a proper proposal to make by the end of
the weekend or sometime mid next week.

Basically, I think we've come close enough to agreement on this matter
that it's worth spending time fleshing out some of the ideas rather than
just making them up.

Oh, and unless there are some technical objections, I'd like to see PAM
added as a goal for slink, or the release after, btw.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

  ``It's not a vision, or a fear. It's just a thought.''


pgpJlug5yiwer.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Bill Mitchell]

On 3 Jun 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>  b) we neeed to release more often, and on schedule 
>  (I like guys proposal of an updated stable pool that can be
>  tested continuuls, frozen, and released fast -- since there are
>  never any release critical bugs in the stable pool, the current
>  delay does not occur)


I'm that guy, or at least I think I recognize this as a paraphrase of
something I suggested.  Thanks for the comment. I think such a plan would
be a considerable improvement over current practice.  I'm a bit 
disappointed that the suggestion seems to have been passed by
without very much discussion (not that the debian project needs a lot
of debian-devel bandwidth and developer energy devoted to discussing
such things right now -- it seems to me that some of the current
debian-devel discussion threads ought to be postponed until after hamm is
out as a stable release, and/or moved to debian-policy or somesuch).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Bear" == Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


 Bear> On the other hand, proportional (or corporate) democracies can be 
 Bear> remarkably stable.  In the case of Debian, a pretty straightforward 
 Bear> democracy can be implemented by voting by "shares," where one share == 
 Bear> one package.  You could also weigh shares by category; e.g., an 
essential 
 Bear> package is worth 5 shares, an optional package is worth 2 shares and
 Bear> an "extra" package is only worth one.

Prolificity is a remarkably bad metric of competence too. We
 need not only people who do the work, we also need to give importance
 to the quality of work performed. Cookie cutter packages should not
 count as a large complex package does --- however, I am suspisious of
 simplistic metrics like this.

I figure that peole who do the work, and are competent, would
 be paid more attention to during a discussion. And hence may
 influence a vote.

I may bge all wet though, and extremely vocal people like me
 may well over whelm discussions.

In any case, no one has really proposed a participatory
 democracy for Debian. The proposal is for a project leader, and
 delegates of that authority, and really, developers maintain full
 editorial control over their packages. There are checks and balances
 instituted for all the powers, but by no means is it an athenian
 democracy.

I am off to play zangband.

manoj
-- 
 We're here to give you a computer, not a religion. attributed to Bob
 Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Bear Giles]

> On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:17:15AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>  
> > Democracy would give the majority the feeling that they have the right to
> > tell the few what to do, which they absolutely do not have.
> 
> That is the major falling of every democracy[...]

There are many different types of democracies.  Universal franchise
democracies are *very* dangerous, for reasons well known (and easily
seen) by anyone interested in the matter.

On the other hand, proportional (or corporate) democracies can be 
remarkably stable.  In the case of Debian, a pretty straightforward 
democracy can be implemented by voting by "shares," where one share == 
one package.  You could also weigh shares by category; e.g., an essential 
package is worth 5 shares, an optional package is worth 2 shares and
an "extra" package is only worth one.

That keeps control in the hands of the people who do the work, and
they're the ones most likely to know what needs to be done and the
true cost of "trivial" changes.  Also, since the voting majority
rests in the hands of relatively few individuals, they can generally
lead by consensus amongst themselves.  If someone disagrees with
their policies, they can easily gain a louder voice by carrying a
greater share of the load.

Since I haven't had time to work on the Hesiod package for several
weeks (not even to recompile it with libc6), I have zero shares and
you're certainly free to ignore me! :-)

Bear Giles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Dale Scheetz]

On 3 Jun 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
>  Dale> We must recognise two things:
> 
>  Dale>1. Debian functions as a "Goal Oriented Anarchy".
>  Dale>(Bruce called it "Herding Cats")
> 
>  Dale>2. The only reason it is functional is that all the cats have 
> the
>  Dale>   same goals (for the most part).
> 
>   It has gotten to the point that the cats have to have a
>  process to recognize the goals. The constitution provides the
>  process. 

The constitution does not "provide" a process, it defines one. It is the
developers in this group, working together, who create "process". It is
primarily this mailing list that "provides" access to that process.

> 
>   Also, it is easy to define fuzzy goals:

Defining fuzzy goals is not the best way to approach this problem, so why
do you wish to waste time in this fashion?

>  a) we need hamm out the door now
>  b) we neeed to release more often, and on schedule 
>  (I like guys proposal of an updated stable pool that can be
>  tested continuuls, frozen, and released fast -- since there are
>  never any release critical bugs in the stable pool, the current
>  delay does not occur)
>  c) we need to cater to unattended installs/ replication in compute
> farms
>  (Ians proposal of a question asking spec was a good
>  start. Linuxconfig and COAS are also promising)
>  d) We eed to get a better front end than dselect
>   APT is coming along
>  e) We need to do a size-required-for-installation thing
>  
>  .
>  
>  n) make debian the best free distribution in the whole darned world
> 
I always thought this was #1 (or 'a)' if you insist)


>   There. Goals galore. If you want more goals, just ask. I can
>  create goals by the minute, no problems. Are we satisfied now?
>  Hardly. For goals are nothing unless they can be fleshed out. Goals
>  by themselves are vapourware.

Hense the need for "discussion", a key word you seem to have forgotten.

> 
>   Since people want to discuss goals, let us get this over and
>  done with. Email me goals, and I promise to have a 100 by the

Such discussions are never over ;-)

>  weekend. Then maybe we can get off and try and actually *DO*
>  something, like design and implementation, rather than sit around
>  talking goals.
> 
Design and implimentation follow goals, not the other way around.

A discussion requires setting goals and determining just what is necessary
from each of us to make these goals attainable. 

Waiting is,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
  Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road
  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Rev. Joseph Carter]

On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 12:59:50PM -0500, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
> > No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.
> 
> I would go a step further and say democracy is always inefficient, in
> fact it is "inefficiant by design"

Indeed, there is a reason why in the US a republic was formed by our
founding fathers and not a democracy.  How things have shifted I don't know,
but they feared anything resembling a democracy (cf. The Federalist Papers)
for the same reasons why our government is as it is today.

A republic would be a better choice.  I am however just one voice and one
choice, so I kinda don't suspect these opinions to change the course of
Debian.

I do think however that now is a bad time to discuss it in detail.  Right
now hamm is more important because the uses are more important than our
squabbles over political structure.


pgpmXv08ByFD6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Raul Miller]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   Since people want to discuss goals, let us get this over and
>  done with. Email me goals, and I promise to have a 100 by the
>  weekend. Then maybe we can get off and try and actually *DO*
>  something, like design and implementation, rather than sit around
>  talking goals.

If you're going to provide 100, it would be extremely useful to also
indicate something of their relative importance.

-- 
Raul


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Dale> We must recognise two things:

 Dale>  1. Debian functions as a "Goal Oriented Anarchy".
 Dale>  (Bruce called it "Herding Cats")

 Dale>  2. The only reason it is functional is that all the cats have the
 Dale> same goals (for the most part).

It has gotten to the point that the cats have to have a
 process to recognize the goals. The constitution provides the
 process. 

Also, it is easy to define fuzzy goals:
 a) we need hamm out the door now
 b) we neeed to release more often, and on schedule 
 (I like guys proposal of an updated stable pool that can be
 tested continuuls, frozen, and released fast -- since there are
 never any release critical bugs in the stable pool, the current
 delay does not occur)
 c) we need to cater to unattended installs/ replication in compute
farms
 (Ians proposal of a question asking spec was a good
 start. Linuxconfig and COAS are also promising)
 d) We eed to get a better front end than dselect
  APT is coming along
 e) We need to do a size-required-for-installation thing
 
 .
 
 n) make debian the best free distribution in the whole darned world

 ...

 x) beat every other OS in market share.


There. Goals galore. If you want more goals, just ask. I can
 create goals by the minute, no problems. Are we satisfied now?
 Hardly. For goals are nothing unless they can be fleshed out. Goals
 by themselves are vapourware.

Since people want to discuss goals, let us get this over and
 done with. Email me goals, and I promise to have a 100 by the
 weekend. Then maybe we can get off and try and actually *DO*
 something, like design and implementation, rather than sit around
 talking goals.

manoj
-- 
 Date: 6 Mar 90 11:07:32 GMT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Andrew Vignaux) @l = split
 (/(..)/,'1a7r4J1n0a7e7c1o8n248o1t4u8v4s7.207l27547a7n7g1h'. '0
 511e3h7.8i564t3a6P1r7p8c8e6e3c3k7e3e533r7r286r6l4 6 1 8,7l7 3,');
 srand; $_=3*int(rand(2))+2; /^$_/; foreach (split(//,&g))
 {/^$_/;print &g;} print "\n"; sub g
 {join('',grep(s/^.//,grep(//,@l)));}
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Stephen Carpenter]

On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:17:15AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> [
>  This post is a on the long side, and probably not of interest to many 
> (sorry).
>  It comes up with the conclusion that Debian and Democracy don't mix.
> ]

yes it is long...as such I wont quote it all :)
 
> > Why? Because even though we do all the work, the masses are
> >  too dumb to do their own masters?  We need a all knowing, all
> >  powerful group of people to tell us how to act? What cventury are we
> >  in now?
> 
> No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.

I would go a step further and say democracy is always inefficient, in
fact it is "inefficiant by design"
 
[snip -good points but I have no reply to them]

> We developers are not under anyone's power, since we can always do our own 
> thing, or leave the project, so the protection democracy gives is unnecessary 
> and adds wasteful overhead to the decision making process.

I just made another post here efore I read this...as I had said, I think 
democracy can work for debian...what I feel I left out was that I agree there

Personally I have no interest in the politics of the project. I try to help out
and plan in the future to do more once things in my life settle down a bit
for the simple reason that i use debian and like it...I want to help out
I want to make the system better, and give everyone (including myself) more
choices within debian.

> They are special, because they are willing to put their heads above the 
> parapet, and take that sort of thing from you.  For that reason, I'm willing 
> to meander slightly away from the place I was going to anyway.  The 
> leadership 
> has no power, other than to suggest a direction.

I think that is the best description I have ever read of what the leadership
should be and how things should work.
 
> Democracy would give the majority the feeling that they have the right to
> tell the few what to do, which they absolutely do not have.

That is the major falling of every democracy, I think that for a group
like debian this is not quite as bad as it has shown itself to be
in other places.
 
> The fact is, that in most cases there is one way of doing things that is more 
> technically excellent than the alternatives (this being a technical, rather 
> than a political project), so disagreements happen less often than in normal 
> life. 

This is the main reason I think democracy, or really any system, could work 
for debian...the obvious downside being the enormous overhead of
democracy

> Please don't assume that I mean that I think developers should be allowed to 
> do random, destructive things.  People that do random, destructive things are 
> unlikely to be attracted to being a Debian maintainer, and if they were I 
> think we should expel that from the project (after warning them that this 
> would happen, if they didn't modify their behavior ).

I agree...and hope that while I am with the project I hope that I shall
never see the day when this is needed.

> Most of us are here because we hold largely common beliefs about what Debian 
> should be.  If changing your citizenship were as easy as changing your 
> hair style, democracy would be largely unnecessary, since people would be 
> able 
> to move to a country that had a government system that matched their beliefs. 
>  

For that to happen, governments would in effect be truely powerless over
individuals, since they can just opt to leave (or possibly start
their own government). This favors personal freedom, and personal freedom is
what all governments are fundamentally opposed to (whether they admit it or 
not)
 
> In a world like that, a vote by the majority against the interests of the few 
> would not work, because the few would just move countries.  That is the
> situation we are in.  

That is one of the few reasons debian could use democracy I think...
AT least if a person very strongly feels one way on an issue, and the majority
vote against it...that person can leave and find a place where their
views are more apreciated and used.

> I vote ``No Democracy for Debian!''  ;-)

I have to agreedemocracy is at BEST overkill, if applied in a general 
sense. If it were applied ina a way such as having a vote over "what
general suggestion of direction the leaders should make"
then that I can see... anything more specific is at best overkill...and at
worst a hinderance to the project as a whole.

However, as I stated I am not tewrribly interested in the "politics" of
the system and much more in just helping to better the system and improve its 
technical excellence, to give back to the community.
 
-Steve


pgpJYgGmIkgZp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Philippe Troin]

On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 11:17:15 BST Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> >  David> Voting by developers should be limited to the election and
> >  David> recall of leaders and the ratification of amendments.
> > 
> > Why? Because even though we do all the work, the masses are
> >  too dumb to do their own masters?  We need a all knowing, all
> >  powerful group of people to tell us how to act? What cventury are we
> >  in now?
> 
> No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.
[snip]
> I vote ``No Democracy for Debian!''  ;-)

ME TOO.
I agree with Philip Hands and David Engel.

Though I think there's better things to discuss (like finishing hamm
for example)...

Phil.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Dale Scheetz]

On 3 Jun 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> Hi,
> >>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
>  Philip> No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.
> 
>   Inefficient or not, if it is the only thing that works ...
> 
As Philip and others have pointed out, that is as feable an argument as
has ever been made. I simply doesn't "work for Debian". 

If you look at the percentage of the list traffic taken up with the "How
Shall We Organize Orselves" type threads, as compared with the percentage
of "What do we need to DO to GET HAMM OUT THE DOOR?" (and YES there is a
need to yell about this), and you will see that we are currently "wasting"
large quantities of Debian Bandwidth doing "pure politics" and little
else.

We must recognise two things:

1. Debian functions as a "Goal Oriented Anarchy".
(Bruce called it "Herding Cats")

2. The only reason it is functional is that all the cats have the
   same goals (for the most part).

The best way to achieve goals in this environment is to discuss the goals,
not the best way to get everyone to work toward them. If the goals are
well thought out (read well discussed) we must rely on everyone doing
their part toward those goals. Whenever we divert our attention from
these tasks we loose ground.

Waiting is,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
  Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road
  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Philip> No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.

Inefficient or not, if it is the only thing that works ...

 Philip> We developers are not under anyone's power, since we can
 Philip> always do our own thing, or leave the project, so the
 Philip> protection democracy gives is unnecessary and adds wasteful
 Philip> overhead to the decision making process.

Creating a system whence the only recourse left to the workers
 is to leave the system is a bad thing.

Mind you, this is being blown all out of proportion. I am an
 adherent of the current constitution; and there *is* a project
 leader, a secretary, and trhere shall be delegates with authority in
 certain areas. It is not as if things arte constrained to be decided
 by popular vote. 

The SRP protocol is already geared towards discouraging
 frivolous resolutions; and I think it is critical that a group of
 developers (at least K are required). 

 Philip> They are special, because they are willing to put their heads
 Philip> above the parapet, and take that sort of thing from you.

Sorry. I do not feel this is enough. We all are contributing
 volunteers. 
 Philip>   1)  The vast majority of developers want something to happen:
 Philip> It's probably going to happen then --- no need for a vote

Hell, no. This is quite naive. Firstly, you assume perfect
 information (a failure of our economics dilletantes too). There _is_
 no perfect knowledge. People do not know what others want. Things
 don't just ``happen''. A vocal minority often holds sway.

 Philip>   2)  The vast majority of developers don't want something to happen
 Philip> It's probably not going to happen then --- no need for a vote

Again, this is not realistic.

I do agree that democracy is the wrong way to settle a
 technical discussion. But often, the discussions involved are not
 technical -- they are subjectve, and there is no (knowable) right
 answer. That is where developer inpput comes in.


 Philip> In this project, the act of taking on a difficult job gives
 Philip> you the right to do it in any way you see fit.  If that means
 Philip> that you annoy enough of the developers, then you may get
 Philip> yourself expelled from the project, but someone else is
 Philip> likely to stand up and do it another way, before that
 Philip> happens.

I hate to set up a system that is so apha-male-chauvinistically
 confrontational. There has to be a simpler way to make things fun for
 people. Not just "Do it OUIR way or take the highway" approach.


 Philip> The fact is, that in most cases there is one way of doing
 Philip> things that is more technically excellent than the
 Philip> alternatives (this being a technical, rather than a political
 Philip> project), so disagreements happen less often than in normal
 Philip> life.  Where this is not the case, it normally gets resolved
 Philip> by the fist person that does something about it pleasing
 Philip> themselves, and the rest of us not minding _too_ much.

Oh, Lord, this project has no politics? All decisions are
 subjective and technical? Where have you been? 

 Philip> Most of the more vocal arguments on these lists seem come
 Philip> from people claiming to be supported by some sort of majority
 Philip> (often falsely) and drawing the conclusion that they have the
 Philip> right to tell an individual what to do.  Well I don't think
 Philip> we have the right to tell anyone in this project what to do.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say democracy
 is not the way to go. That leaders suggest things. And now,
 there is no protocol for resolution. This is a recipe for chaos.

The constitution is an agreement: a partnership of people who
 realizer that in life there is conflict, and who agree on protocols
 to promote resolution of these conflicts.

The issue of resolving using votes: it assumes that we are at
 least sei reasonable people here; if the issue is so clear cut and
 technical, then people can be made to see that and reach a consensus;
 that a vote is a method to determine the popular sentiment on
 selection between subjective choices.

The constitution is rather poor democracy, when it comes to
 that (developers have total control of their packages, unless drastic
 measures are taken -- no voting there): it is, however, in my
 opinion, something that we need.

manoj
-- 
 "Did U arrest the 85 yr old lady or just beat her up." "We just
 slapped her around a bit... she's getting m/t [medical treatment]
 right now." LAPD squad-car computer messages, as quoted in the
 Christopher Report, 7/91
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Philip Hands]

[
 This post is a on the long side, and probably not of interest to many (sorry).
 It comes up with the conclusion that Debian and Democracy don't mix.
]

>  David> Voting by developers should be limited to the election and
>  David> recall of leaders and the ratification of amendments.
> 
>   Why? Because even though we do all the work, the masses are
>  too dumb to do their own masters?  We need a all knowing, all
>  powerful group of people to tell us how to act? What cventury are we
>  in now?

No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.

Rather than give every passenger on the bus a steering wheel, let the 
passengers vote for one of their number to be the driver, and let them decide 
which tunings to take, based on the hubbub of ``lefts'' and ``rights'' 
heard from the passengers.
If the driver fails to keep the bus on the road, vote for a replacement.

Democracy is a tool for allowing people that are under the power of an
authority, to at least feel as though they have some power in the situation 
(even if it is only the power to exchange one despot for another)

We developers are not under anyone's power, since we can always do our own 
thing, or leave the project, so the protection democracy gives is unnecessary 
and adds wasteful overhead to the decision making process.

> 
>  David> Developers should still be allowed to make proposals but the
>  David> final decision making authority should rest with the leaders
>  David> or their delegates.
> 
>   I refuse to let any opne have such power. Unless they pay
>  me. Shall I make my rates know to the supposed leaders and delegates?
>  What makes leaders and delegates so special that they can command the
>  masses that do the work? When they bleed, does their blood run blue?

They are special, because they are willing to put their heads above the 
parapet, and take that sort of thing from you.  For that reason, I'm willing 
to meander slightly away from the place I was going to anyway.  The leadership 
has no power, other than to suggest a direction.

Democracy doesn't work in this situation.  Lets have a look at some 
possibilities:

  1)  The vast majority of developers want something to happen:

It's probably going to happen then --- no need for a vote

  2)  The vast majority of developers don't want something to happen

It's probably not going to happen then --- no need for a vote

  3)  A majority believes that something should happen, but the people
required to do something about it disagree.

Chances are that you won't be able to make it happen, unless someone
decides to take over the difficult job and do it differently.

There is a very good chance that the disagreement rises out of the fact
that the majority has failed to notice a problem, that the few in the know
understand because they've been doing the work in the field.

Democracy would give the majority the feeling that they have the right to
tell the few what to do, which they absolutely do not have.

In this project, the act of taking on a difficult job gives you the right
to do it in any way you see fit.  If that means that you annoy enough of
the developers, then you may get yourself expelled from the project, but
someone else is likely to stand up and do it another way, before that
happens.

The fact is, that in most cases there is one way of doing things that is more 
technically excellent than the alternatives (this being a technical, rather 
than a political project), so disagreements happen less often than in normal 
life.  Where this is not the case, it normally gets resolved by the fist 
person that does something about it pleasing themselves, and the rest of us 
not minding _too_ much.

Most of the more vocal arguments on these lists seem come from people claiming
to be supported by some sort of majority (often falsely) and drawing the 
conclusion that they have the right to tell an individual what to do.  Well I 
don't think we have the right to tell anyone in this project what to do.

Please don't assume that I mean that I think developers should be allowed to 
do random, destructive things.  People that do random, destructive things are 
unlikely to be attracted to being a Debian maintainer, and if they were I 
think we should expel that from the project (after warning them that this 
would happen, if they didn't modify their behavior ).

Most of us are here because we hold largely common beliefs about what Debian 
should be.  If changing your citizenship were as easy as changing your 
hair style, democracy would be largely unnecessary, since people would be able 
to move to a country that had a government system that matched their beliefs.  

In a world like that, a vote by the majority against the interests of the few 
would not work, because the few would just move countries.  That is the
situation we are in.  

I vote ``No Democracy for Debian!''  ;-)

Cheers, Phil.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"David" == David Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 David> Rather, my point is that strong leadership is needed to help
 David> keep everyone focused and the project on course in the future.

And I think if we need such leadership, we may as well pack
 our bags and go home, for it is not going to fly. Charismatic
 leadership happens. It can not be decreed, or coaxed out of
 nothingness. So, either we sit around waiting for charismatic
 leadership to happen to us and lift us out of our doldrums, or we
 take our destiny into our own hands and do something about it.

 David> I guess we're just going to have to disagree.  I've stated before that
 David> a democracy is not the best way to run Debian and I still stand by
 David> that.  Democracy is the right way to run a government.  It is not the
 David> right way to run a project.  I would much rather see a single person
 David> or small group of people, with the right vision and skills, be put in
 David> charge (with some checks and balances, of course) and let them manage.

We already tried this method. Our erstwhile leader was
 charismatic, had a vision, had leadership qualities. He was boldly
 leading us where we had never gone before. He had us all licked into
 focus. He was providing leadership. And the experiment (pardon me)
 failed miserably.

You know why? Cause the developer did not want to go where he
 was leading us.

Debian is not a nation. It is not a company. You can't have
 one person crack a whip and keep the galley slaves in line. Benevolent 
 dictatorships have a tendency to grow corrupt. And fail.

Leader ship by the Elite. Isn't that what the asian markets
 were all about? No open process, no protocols, just old boy networks
 of elites?

'Tis a new world order, my friend. 

 David> I have read the constitution.  It is way overkill and places too much
 David> potentially destructive power in the hands of developers.

Since the developers do all the hard work, (and believe me,
 sleep deprivation is not a jke, and many suffer from it), we are not
 likely to be ``destructive''. And if we did collectively wish to be
 self destructive, who has the right to stop us? 

 David> Voting by developers should be limited to the election and
 David> recall of leaders and the ratification of amendments.

Why? Because even though we do all the work, the masses are
 too dumb to do their own masters?  We need a all knowing, all
 powerful group of people to tell us how to act? What cventury are we
 in now?

 David> Developers should still be allowed to make proposals but the
 David> final decision making authority should rest with the leaders
 David> or their delegates.

I refuse to let any opne have such power. Unless they pay
 me. Shall I make my rates know to the supposed leaders and delegates?
 What makes leaders and delegates so special that they can command the
 masses that do the work? When they bleed, does their blood run blue?

manoj
 admittedly incensed
-- 
 Lord FINCHLEY tried to mend the Electric Light Himself. It struck him
 dead: And serve him right! It is the business of the wealthy man To
 give employment to the artisan. Belloc
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[David Engel]

On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 12:35:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  David> Reread some of my earlier messages.  I firmly believe that a
>  David> lack of strong leadership has been one of the biggest
>  David> contributing factors in Debian's inability to put out timely
>  David> releases.
> 
>   I think that placing the blame on the leadership is a) non
>  productive, and b) the easy way to duck blame. 

My choice of wording was poor.  My intent was not to place blame.
Everyone, myself included, was to blame for letting things drift off
course in the past.  Rather, my point is that strong leadership is
needed to help keep everyone focused and the project on course in the
future.

>  The Debian project is
>  too big for one person. We need now a formalized method for
>  initiating changes; and that we are getting, once we ratify the
>  constitution. 
>  [...]
>   You are talking about the growing pains of a project that has
>  gone beyond the old boys club, and can no longer operate in an ad hoc
>  fashion.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree.  I've stated before that
a democracy is not the best way to run Debian and I still stand by
that.  Democracy is the right way to run a government.  It is not the
right way to run a project.  I would much rather see a single person
or small group of people, with the right vision and skills, be put in
charge (with some checks and balances, of course) and let them manage.

>   In my opinion, this is thinking in the mold of the old ways,
>  when a godly central project leader made or broke the project. Read
>  teh constitution. We need to go beyond the dependency on one
>  individual. We have the talent to discover a process, a business
>  model, so to say, that enables us to put forth releases on a more
>  frequent time table.

I have read the constitution.  It is way overkill and places too much
potentially destructive power in the hands of developers.  Voting by
developers should be limited to the election and recall of leaders and
the ratification of amendments.  Developers should still be allowed to
make proposals but the final decision making authority should rest
with the leaders or their delegates.

David
-- 
David EngelODS Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX  75081


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Raul Miller]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  I am interested in something way more fundamental to the project than
>  the mere next release. Unless we thing beyond the next quarter, and
>  if we fail to make more or less radical changes, we are doomed to
>  repeat the pattern of past releases.

Yes.

And no.

In my opinion, we'll do a far better job of planning future releases if
we get the current one out of the way before we finish deciding what
the next ones should look like. If we focus a bit on what the current
obstacles are, we'll have much greater insight as to what we need to do
in the future.

[Test results are an important aspect of upgrade analysis.]

-- 
Raul


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Jules Bean]

--On Tue, Jun 2, 1998 9:35 am +0100 "Enrique Zanardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: 

> Also due to the big number of developers and "sub-projects" inside of
> the Debian project, it's hard to follow how every sub-project is going on
> (what's going on with
apt/dpkg/boot-floppies/i18n/consistent-keyboard-config/
> java-devel-environment/debian-4-PDAs/debian-documentation/... these days?)
> 
> A monthly or bimonthly report from each of those sub-projects would
> tell us things are going on, and would help finding collaborators.



Now that is an excellent idea!

How about someone volunteers as 'debian project coordinator' and every 2
months someone from the team of each project emails them a status report. 
They then summarise or quote these as appropriate, and send out an email (to
some list.. don't know which..)


/+---+-\
|  Jelibean aka  | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  6 Evelyn Rd|
|  Jules aka |   |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  TW9 2TF *UK*   |
++---+-+
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.  |
\--/



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

[Enrique Zanardi]

On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 12:35:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   The formal SPR's are also a good way of documenting proposals,
>  I think that we should archive formal SPR's, and all the amendments
>  accepted, etc, so we do not ``forget'' the lofty goals in a few
>  months.

Also due to the big number of developers and "sub-projects" inside of
the Debian project, it's hard to follow how every sub-project is going on
(what's going on with apt/dpkg/boot-floppies/i18n/consistent-keyboard-config/
java-devel-environment/debian-4-PDAs/debian-documentation/... these days?)

A monthly or bimonthly report from each of those sub-projects would
tell us things are going on, and would help finding collaborators.

--
Enrique Zanardi[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]