On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:49:52PM -0800, mbc wrote: > consensus process, see http://consensus.net/ocaccontents.html
That's something like what we used to do most of the time, and it's still what we mostly do. Realize that we do not use Parliamentary Procedure. More generally, our decision making system can be (and has been) approached as something which is similar to the consensus system, even though it's not formally identical. And, the "Leader Position" is something we've always had -- we had a leader before we had a project. We burned out our first few leaders, and the system we've got now is supposed to insulate the leader from the worst aspects of trying to lead Debian. I think it does a pretty good job. Finally, I think we fail on some of the what it claims are requirements needed for that system to work. In particular: We delegate authority (especially on hardware issues). We rely on experts (especially upstream, and standards bodies). Whether these it is accurate in claiming that these are requirements is probably less important than simply trying to understand that the good aspects of what it's talking about aren't achieved by relying on it as an authority. Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
