[ As some people have pointed out, this discussion is non-technical, hence it belongs to debian-project rather than debian-devel where it was started. ]
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:10:02PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: GM> Hmmm, good point in theory, i think it happened once to strip power GM> from the project leader, i dont think a General Resolution has been GM> to a vote in the last 2 years. Was it so because it was impossible, or because it wasn't necessary? In my opinion, it was unnecessary precisely because it was possible: when you know that your decision can be overriden by GR, you just don't make a decision that you know would be overriden. GM> In practice there are a small number of individuals who maintain GM> control of debian.... in practice our behaviour is restricted by GM> these few. Elaborate, please, I need evidence to this accusation. GM>>> Debian has policy. DB>> What's wrong with this? GM> I dont say its good or bad, just that its another form of GM> centralised control (like DPL and appointed positions), which makes GM> debian less anarchistic than the free software community in GM> general. Is TCP/IP standard fascist because its implementations must obey strict rules? Standard does not imply centralization, only cooperation; it is control over standard that can be centralized, and in Debian, it isn't. GM> Im getting out of my depth.. something about anarchy implying GM> freedom and the illusion of freedom given by democracy. I've got your point, I agree with it in general, but I just want to point out that Debian provides real democracy, not a representative illusion. GM> Look to policy in considering if we anarchistic, not to our ability GM> to choose our leader. Leadership is not equal to power, and DPL has no power over individual developers. He hold no property, and wields no means of coercion. -- Dmitry Borodaenko
