This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFD: A modest proposal #2: unsupported


Christopher Faylor wrote:
[a reasonable position snipped]

Pragmatically speaking, this is what will happen.  I'm not even going
to add an IMO, since I think that all of this is a 100% certainty.

Sure, there will undoubtedly be problems. But it (unsupported/) will also bring benefits. It's a matter of cost vs. benefit -- which is a value judgement, and not something we can prove one way or the other without trying it out.


However, that's why we have benevolent dictators -- it's their job to make these calls.

(Open source is not, in general, a democracy. Debian, the most community-driven of all large open source projects, elects its leader yearly -- but that leader once chosen has final say on a huge range of issues, at least until the next election. And each person favored with the privilege of voting in that election has to have proven themselves in a number of ways. Thus, even Debian is a dictatorship in the ancient Roman sense: a supreme leader with wide-ranging powers is chosen for a limited time by a representative or meritocratic body [the Senate|the Debian maintainers] Yes, I'm glossing over a ton of stuff; here endeth the silly historical discourse...)

So, count me as not liking this idea. Sorry, Chuck.

Okay, fair enough. I've mumbled about this a number of times over the past few years, but never went to the effort of formally proposing it. I've done so, the benevolent dictator has opposed it; I won't press the issue.


Thanks for your time.

Now, about that /opt tree...

--Chuck


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]