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.
This is what I do not like about Free Software. If the developers opinions interfere, the project is forked. They do not work together and evaluate possible solutions. They reject all discussion and stick to their plans.
Yeah, and in closed software "management" doesn't listen and rejects all discussion. Your point is what, exactly?
Forking is great opportunity to have, but you should avoid it wherever it is possible. You should only use it like as a "rescue plan" and consider it as the last chance. -- Matthias-Christian Ott