From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS file Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:52:59 -0500 Message-ID: <878x121lwk.fsf@red-bean.com> References: <18375.18663.981150.252393@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <87ir088d1y.fsf@red-bean.com> <18375.60094.959733.716249@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <87skzb5r3l.fsf@red-bean.com> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204386805 2730 80.91.229.12 (1 Mar 2008 15:53:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:53:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 01 16:53:51 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JVU21-0003we-ES for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:53:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JVU1U-0006BT-Uw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:53:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JVU1P-0006B4-4T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:53:11 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JVU1J-000691-Gq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:53:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JVU1J-00068y-Ef for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:53:05 -0500 Original-Received: from sanpietro.red-bean.com ([66.146.193.61]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JVU1F-0006U6-Qm; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:53:01 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38195 ident=kfogel) by sanpietro.red-bean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JVU1E-0000m5-E5; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:53:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat\, 01 Mar 2008 11\:27\:00 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:90994 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> This is not true. For example, in the Subversion project there is no >> arbitrator. We try for consensus, and if there is unresolveable >> disagreement, the global committers vote. > > So in your case, the vote by the global committers is that ``someone'' > whom Nick calls ``arbitrator''. Thus, ``this is not true'' above is, > well, not true. If by "arbitrator" he merely meant "some means of resolving disputes when consensus cannot be reached", then sure. But that's not the definition of "arbitrator" that most of the world uses, I think. An arbitrator is a person or standing committee that makes decisions when agreement cannot be reached among a larger group. An arbitrator is not necessarily a member of the group for which the decision is being made (though may be, and in this case would be). When the entire larger group votes, the word for that is "democracy", and it is distinguishable from arbitration by these properties: everyone is involved equally, and the decision-making processes is transparent. Neither of those need be true for arbitration. >> A power structure is not needed, when you have revision control (so >> changes can be undone) and forkability (so dissenters are never >> trapped). > > So you think that commit/revert wars and forks are a better > alternative than clear, agreed-upon rules? At this point I have to roll my eyes. Sorry, I hadn't realized we were operating at the level of rhetoric used in U.S. presidental campaigns rather than that used on free software development lists. Sigh. -Karl