rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Mar 20 16:03:54 UTC 2007
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 05:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 05:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 15:00 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> > > 3. Process and democracy are not a replacement for strong leadership.
> > "process and democracy" are means to establish "an accepted leadership"!
> > I.e. a "strong leadership" will only work, if it is "accepted by the
> > anonymous masses". This where I feel Fedora leadership has always had
> > and still has deficits.
> Could you provide examples of this where more than just one or two vocal
> people opposed something and it was done anyway? I cannot recall such a
> time, but if there is one it would be important to use as an example to
> learn from.
Why am I not really surprised about his answer?
A successful "strong leadership" in a system run by volunteers, implies
"leadership to provide guidance to the public" and "leadership to
achieve acceptance by the public".
So far, this has not taken place. Instead, Fedora has a leadership
system, which is widely being ignored by the public, unless it
interferes with individual contributor interests.
More information about the advisory-board