Hi, Third party perspective: the reason this is a neverending unproductive conversation is because there is no focus. Let's drop all the grandiose speculation and philosophizing (a quick web search would turn up countless examples of my own guilt; so no fingers pointed).
Here are the steps to making a decision: 1. Decide what it is you are trying to achieve. Decide what the problem is, or what the goal is. What *actual practical benefit* can be shown to exist *in a predictable, relatively short timeframe*, *when speaking to the intended audience*. There are two values all Debian developers can be assumed to share: they want to promote free software (specifically Debian, but in general) and they want to make Debian a good and useful product. Sure, there are a couple exceptions; but in general these are the values that define the group. So, as a starting point: please frame all arguments in these terms. How will Debian or free software benefit. It is probably a good idea to keep it short-term and concrete. 2. Decide what the possible courses of action are. Given your goals, what steps could be taken to move toward them? If multiple steps can be taken, condense all compatible steps into a single course of action, and place mutually exclusive steps in separate courses of action. Enumerate the alternatives *specifically*, with *concrete details*. 3. Evaluate the courses of action. What possible costs and benefits come from each course of action, and what is the probability that each cost and benefit will actually come about. Costs and benefits must be defined in terms of the values and goals arrived at in step 1. That is, they must be costs and benefits that the community making the decision cares about. This is not the time to explain your philosophy of life. 4. Pick the best plan. If everyone is very clear about what *exactly* they are advocating, what *exactly* they think there is to be gained, and (equally important) what *exactly* they are opposed to, then the conversation will reach resolution much more quickly, or at least it will become clear that you lack the required facts to make a decision. There is a reason parliamentary procedure involves making concrete proposals. Of course, if people can't reach agreement on point 1, the "first principles," then you can't possibly agree on 2/3/4. In this situation you have to agree to disagree: you're left with majority rule, strong leadership, or some sort of ideologically-inconsistent-but-politically-viable compromise. That is why I suggest simply stipulating that only values clearly shared by most of the community be used in the argument, because a merger starting with step 1 is likely to come out nicer than haphazardly merging two independently-arrived-at courses of action. FWIW, Havoc
