Quoting Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Several d-i project contributors just tell you that the way the > > project they contribute to is working is, in their opinion, the best > > appropriated way for this project. > > It's the worst possible way for any project. Why can you not see that?
Well, this seems to be a way which is accepted by all projects members. So I hardly see why having someone not involved in the project disagree with this approach makes the project "bad", "worse" or whatever. > To judge any given proposal or change on *anything* other than the > merits is foolish and destructive. Did someone say that proposals are judged another way? We all mention you that the D-I project is a project with about 100 contributors. One of them (Joey) became the "de facto" leader because his contributions to the project earned him the respect from other project members. This does not make him any God or whatever : as a general unwritten agreement, his advice just receives more attention. We sometime argue...and we sometimes don't completely agree. Then we discuss the issues by mail, on IRC...or at Debconf. And we decide on a general consensus, that's it. A few other people in the project have received some unwritten tacite respect from other project members. This happens on each and every project : this is just human nature and, well, it works well. This probably gives their advice more power during discussions...but, after all, all of them have just been people who made most of the work.
