Re: New MI maintainer

> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:20:56 -0800
> From: Thomas Dineen <tdineenix.netcom.com>
> CC: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fcheredhat.com>,  gdbsourceware.org
> 
> Gentle People:
> 
>    Yes but with the conditions listed below:
> 
>    "robustly constructed and justified"
> 
>    any contributor can easily be blown off for
> any political reason!

While theoretically possible, I'm quite sure such
conspiracies can
never happen in practice in this case, since the people
involved come
from several different continents, cultural backgrounds, and
political
views.  In fact, just reaching an agreement is sometimes a
formidable
job for us.

>    From my observations the attitudes expressed
> in this thread are NOT positive for the Open Source
> Movement. I would suggest that your movement would
> benefit from more openness and democracy.

Sorry, but that's pure demagoguery.  "Open Source"
and "Free Software"
mean that the sources are available.  They don't mean that
every
aspect of human life is open to the public.  Even the most
open
democracies always have closed deliberations about certain
issues.
You cannot lead a group in any significant human endeavor
without a
certain distance between the leadership and the rest, and
without
closed deliberations about some sensitive issues.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:22:41PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii
wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:20:56 -0800
>> From: Thomas Dineen <tdineenix.netcom.com>
>> CC: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fcheredhat.com>,  gdbsourceware.org
>> 
>> Gentle People:
>> 
>>    Yes but with the conditions listed below:
>> 
>>    "robustly constructed and justified"
>> 
>>    any contributor can easily be blown off for
>> any political reason!
>
>While theoretically possible, I'm quite sure such
conspiracies can
>never happen in practice in this case, since the people
involved come
>from several different continents, cultural backgrounds,
and political
>views.  In fact, just reaching an agreement is sometimes
a formidable
>job for us.

Yes! What seems to be getting lost is the fact that all of
the
development of gdb IS *very* open.  When someone submits a
patch,
everyone gets to see it and everyone gets to see any
technical
objections.  How long would the project last if there were
hidden
agendas behind every communication?

(Well, ok, experience has shown that it could last several
years
like that but still, it's not like that *now*)

>>From my observations the attitudes expressed in this
thread are NOT
>>positive for the Open Source Movement.  I would
suggest that your
>>movement would benefit from more openness and
democracy.
>
>Sorry, but that's pure demagoguery.  "Open
Source" and "Free Software"
>mean that the sources are available.  They don't mean
that every aspect
>of human life is open to the public.  Even the most open
democracies
>always have closed deliberations about certain issues. 
You cannot lead
>a group in any significant human endeavor without a
certain distance
>between the leadership and the rest, and without closed
deliberations
>about some sensitive issues.

Amen.

It's interesting how often people try to tack on bigger
concerns to the
simple concept of Free Software.  Free Software isn't
supposed to be
solving global warming and it isn't supposed to be a
demonstration of a
New World Order with feel-good cum ba yah.  It's just a
guarantee that
you get the source code for the software that you're using.

Managing any project where people are involved means that
sometimes the
people in charge have to have frank, private conversations. 
The
alternative, as Stan Shebs, notes is to essentially do
performance
reviews in the open.

Some projects *do* work that way but they are hardly
bastions of
civilized discourse.

cgf