On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 03:23:57 +0100 Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko at gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, governments are typically not made of experts, but of > opportunists. Name one president of <insert your favorite political > entity here> that has been elected because he has a PhD in political > sciences/history/law/whatever, or because he had enough hands-on > experience in governing the state (maybe without a formal degree). Woodrow Wilson. Ph.D. in Political Science (John Hopkins), President of Princeton University, Governor of the State New Jersey, President of the United States of America. > Even if one such exists, I doubt he would listen to whatever > random non-initiated group of people are "suggesting". Then you would be wrong. Once his mind was made up then Wilson became quite closed to further suggestion on a subject. Up to that point he sought as wide and varied a range of opinion as he could obtain. Your pride in what you know is blinding you to the value of knowledge of others in areas where you know little and presume much. I have had much experience with volunteer organisations. I now stay well clear of any involvement with them. This recent string of interrogations by concerned people, whether ignorant or not, and the aggrieved tone of the responses of some of the inner circle demonstrate the type of emotional blackmail which I frequently encounter and find so distressful in these bodies. I have no doubt that everyone involved with CentOS is pursuing some goal that they believe serves the greater good. However, difficulties ofttimes arise when one encounters another who either does not share ones belief or, as is more often the case, understands the nature of the shared goal, or the means by which it is attained, in a fashion fundamentally at odds with ones own. These uncomfortable collisions with political reality often occur at junctures such as CentOS recently experienced. Most of the people here were no doubt quite content to allow the sages of the project whatever leeway that the sages desired. In return we got a free (as in beer) copy of a very reputable Linux distribution. Had the recent inner conflict not become public then this happy arrangement might have persisted indefinitely. I still consider this arrangement a very good bargain having neither the talent nor the desire to become a sage myself. However, when the mortal nature of the sages is revealed together with the possibility of a project collapse as very real consideration, regardless how unlikely, then those dependent upon the stability of the project become fearful. Fearful people seek reassurance that their fears are baseless. A bald statement by the sages that the fear is baseless is in itself insufficient. Doubtless the fearful have told themselves that many times already. Having inoculated doubt it is now incumbent upon those who sowed it to address specific concerns raised by those who fear. Telling people who voice concerns to get lost and find another distribution, even if their concerns are presented in the form of ill-considered suggestions, smacks of arrogance to me, however it appears to others. Further, it does absolutely nothing to address the fears that prompted the suggestion. The baleful effects of these kind of replies upon those who read but choose not to participate may only be imagined, but be assured they are neither positive nor insignificant. The fact that one is a volunteer leader does not lessen the requirement that to receive the trust and support of others one must meet satisfactorily the expectations of those who follow. I am not clamoring for any immediate changes. I do not propose a program that I wish anyone else to follow. I do appreciate very much the efforts of all who contribute to the success of the CentOS projects. I further acknowledge that those who presently form the core support team are probably best equipped to evaluate the bona fides of prospective core members. Nonetheless, it is very evident from the heated exchanges on this mailing list that there exists a substantial divergence on which path to take from here. It seems to me insupportable that the past practices of a small coterie of initiates deciding on everything without community input will suffice for the future. If that does become the choice taken then I foresee the community splitting in the future in consequence. Finally, please drop the word "meritocracy" in future communications. It implies a natural worthiness of those to whom it is applied which is simply not appropriate to these discussions. The proper word in this circumstance is "oligarchy." -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3