On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, James Walker <walkah@walkah.net> wrote:

Uh oh, angie... ;-)

On 21-Feb-08, at 1:37 PM, Angela Byron wrote:
> James Walker wrote:
>> On 21-Feb-08, at 7:57 AM, Moshe Weitzman wrote:
>>> FYI, what Karoly proposes is exactly how the Mozilla project works.
>>> Each patch needs a "super review" from a fixed (but large) list of
>>> reveiwers. See http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/

Truth is, we're not so different. Mozilla has *thousands* of
contributors ... they're an older, bigger project... and I think we
can stand to learn from them as well as others out there. Shoulders
of giants 'n' all that :-)
--
James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net

Yesterday I found this post of Stefano Mazzocchi (http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/104/) very inspiring and I think his reflections (and Linus words too) on the difference between CVS/SVN and GIT and implications on community governance are very appropriate to issue raised on this thread.

It's no matter of religion wars on versioning tools (a knife is a knife no matter you can kill someone or enjoy some pate' on a croasted bread) it's the fact that some model (delegation of the autority) could be better than other (MAINTAINERS.txt).

Maybe Linux is too far from our little blue word but I guess that if we want to preserve the "passion" of this community we wouldn't move through a more beuarocratic system.

Well, I don't have any idea which solution could work, but still I think the debate should take this point very seriously.

best

ema

--
Emanuele Quinto - www.bitvark.it
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My mother used to say to me, "Elwood" - she always called me Elwood -
"In this world, Elwood, you must be oh-so smart, or oh-so pleasant."
For years I was smart. I recommend pleasant, and you may quote me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------