Comment 234 for bug 532633

El vie, 19-03-2010 a las 00:18 +0000, personman escribió:
> OK. Fair warning, this is long as hell, but there were some ideological
> differences that I felt needed to be addressed. This is a reply to Mark
> which is probably too way long to justify his reading it, but I'm
> posting it anyway.
>
> >We all make Ubuntu, but we do not all make all of it. In other words,
> we delegate well. We have a kernel team, and they make kernel decisions.
>
> Seems reasonable enough, assuming they are reasonably open-minded
> individuals, who take the ideas of others in to consideration,
> particularly their users.
>
> >You don't get to make kernel decisions unless you're in that kernel
> team.
>
> If by "that kernel team," you mean, everyone who has ever filed a bug
> report or mentioned an oops, or tested SOMETHING or any of the various
> other cooperative activities between users and developers that have
> given us the kernel we have today over the last 18 years or so, I might
> even agree with you here...
>
> >You can file bugs and comment, and engage, but you don't get to second-
> guess their decisions.
>
> Now that is where, IMO, you are completely wrong. NO ONE is above being
> second-guessed. Not a president, not a king, not Linus Almighty, nor God
> himself. (Who, incidentally, I don't believe exists, and if he did,
> should be overthrown.)
>
> I'm not going to call you a dictator because that is extreme, and a word
> obviously widely-viewed as being a personal attack. I will say, it seems
> to me your thought process is indicative of an authoritarian mentality.
>
> Why should it not be? You're a CEO... That is the job. I personally
> don't believe in the authority principal... This does not mean I reject
> all authority. The Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin put it well. It is long,
> but hopefully, enlightening. I've offered a brief summary in my own
> words that follows this, feel free to skip ahead...
>
> "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought.
> In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker;
> concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect
> or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such
> a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the
> savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with
> all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their
> knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and
> censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any
> special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose
> that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible
> authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I
> may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an
> individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would
> be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my
> undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an
> instrument of the will and interests of others."
>
> To summarize: I will defer to the authority of experts, but voluntarily,
> and not by force.
>
> I admit, that sometimes the authority of expertise is a legitimate
> authority. This is why Linus writes my kernels rather than Bob down the
> street... or why if I get a tumor the size of grapefruit growing out of
> my head, I will see a neurologist...rather than Bob down the street.
>
> What sticks in my craw, is what exactly defines who is an expert on an
> aesthetic issue like button placement? Is this a realm where a kernel
> hacker has much more authority than Joe User and their Ma and Pa?
>
> Considering your argument was essentially an appeal to authority on the
> basis of expertise, I think this is a valid question.
>
> >We have a security team. They get to make
> >decisions about security. You don't get to see a lot of what they
> >see unless you're on that team. We have processes to help make
> >sure we're doing a good job of delegation, but being an open
> >community is not the same as saying everybody has a say in
> >everything.
>
> It is actually. It doesn't mean you have to listen of course, but
> everyone DOES get a say. I'd imagine you are realizing this now, if you
> haven't before.
>
> >This is a difference between Ubuntu and several other community
> >distributions. It may feel less democratic, but it's more
> >meritocratic, and most importantly it means (a) we should have
> >the best people making any given decision, and (b) it's worth
> >investing your time to become the best person to make certain
> >decisions, because you should have that competence recognised
> >and rewarded with the freedom to make hard decisions and not
> >get second-guessed all the time.
>
> I think the idea that democracy and meritocracy are mutually exclusive
> to any degree is an incorrect one... If anything, they are mutually
> beneficial.
>
> If they weren't, you wouldn't be using Debian as a base, or the Linux
> kernel as a core.
>
> Again this goes to my critique of the authority principal, that
> somewhere, some guy, some team, knows what is best, and everyone else
> needs to follow.
>
> This idea is demonstrably false by the fact that we have a thriving open
> movement to begin with. Where decisions have been made cooperatively,
> rather than handed down from above.
>
> If the "best" way was subservients reporting to bosses who call the
> shots, Linux would be a complete failure, and it isn't.
>
> It is the people who decide the merit. You've said as much in some of
> your posts in this thread. (Something along the lines of, 'people will
> vote with their feet,' I'm admittedly paraphrasing.)
>
> >It's fair comment that this was a big change, and landed without
> >warning. There aren't any good reasons for that, but it's also
> >true that no amount of warning would produce consensus about a
> >decision like this.
>
> Maybe the functionality introduced in the top-right corner will amaze
> and astound us all... There were a lot of doubters during KDE's overhaul
> w/ version 4. I personally saw limitations, but also merits. It has been
> my desktop of choice for some time now... since 4.1 or 4.2.
>
> >No. This is not a democracy. Good feedback, good data, are welcome.
> >But we are not voting on design decisions.
>
> I'm actually not a democrat. Or more accurately not JUST a democrat. I'm
> an Anarchist, which means I'm well aware of the shortcomings of
> democracy, but also well aware that it is usually a better alternative
> to hierarchy. It is the spirit of cooperation and solidarity in
> democracy that separates it from the archaic forms of oppression of our
> past, such as monarchy, oligarchy, or the various forms of
> totalitarianism, left or right.
>
> As I've alluded to earlier, I actually run Kubuntu, rather than Ubuntu.
> So, at least currently, I'm not affected by this dilemma. I will say,
> having moved from Debian, there are things about *ubuntu that I like
> very much:
>
> I like recent packages, even if I have to run development versions to
> get them.
>
> I like a fast boot experience.
>
> I like being reasonably confident, that if I hear about some cool new
> program, I can do a quick search in synaptic, and install it most of the
> time.
>
> In the event that I cannot, I like that many software developers make
> *ubuntu packages available as standard operating procedure.
>
> There are things I do not like about *ubuntu:
>
> I don't particularly like having to run a complete development desktop
> just to get theora 1.1, or other recent applications, though I can
> understand to some degree, the reasoning behind it.
>
> I am not particularly thrilled that Ubuntu is infected with mono.
> Admittedly I'm going by what I hear, as I've not run gnome in some time.
>
> Also, I'd like to defend fewt. Tabloids make stuff up. He quoted you
> exactly.
>
> Out of context? This entire thread is the context.
>
> All he did was concentrate the authoritarian mentality I referred to
> earlier... and yeah... it sounds bad. Because it IS bad.
>
> To be perfectly honest, I don;t really care where the buttons are... I'd
> prefer where I'm used to, but I can adjust. What bothers me, is the
> mentality behind the decision making process.
>
> As I said, this is long as hell. I don't expect a response. But maybe
> think about it? If you think I have 10% of a good point, maybe all this
> writing will have been worth it.
>
> -Andy
> AnarchismToday.org
>
> MCP, programmer, web-designer, philosopher, and about a million other
> things.

+1
realy impresive

the community put ubuntu in the place where is today, and can make it go
away

daniel palanas.a