Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@crux.nu> wrote:
Matthias-Christian Ott [2007-10-06 13:27]:
treach <treachster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11:48 Sat 06 Oct?, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Sorry, I was never present in the IRC channel and therefore all my statements were not intended to describe the situation of #crux. But usually the situation of the community has also consequences for the IRC channel.
I think you've got this a bit backwards. In general it seems to be the IRC channel that has consequences for the community, such as it is, rather than the other way around.
I do not know whether I would be more successful than you. But my goal is not to take over the control over the project. The community will control the project.
You speak repeatedly of this "community" that supposedly stands ready to take over development. What community would that be? In what way is it possible to run the development by the "community" to a higher degree than it's currently done? By giving anyone who fires off an email "developer" status? You complain a lot about how hard it is to participate; have you ever had a look at the procedures for becoming a debian/fedora dev?
Currently I do not know who will be part of the community, but I thought that there will be some people. I wrote about this concept of the patch queue which makes developer accounts unnecessary and enables the community to vote for or against patches. So no procedures are required, everything happens transparently in the public.
How exactly would the community vote on your libtre patch, eg? Most of them probably don't know C or what that patch really meant so
But they could have read the references I gave or I could explain it to them. Anyhow this patch is not a great matter of importance.
giving them the right to decide on its fate seems stupido.
Well, I want to have the right to make decisions and everyone should have this right. What you prefer is an oligarchy. -- Matthias-Christian Ott