Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/10/01/19:52:40
> I hear too much about voting or popularity. Voting with a victory
> claimed by a largest vote in such a small pool is just some kind of
> takeover strategy. The largest vote getter might get 30%. With
> this group of people and their priorities, 30% might mean 4 people.
I don't see what "voting" or "consensus" has to do with creating a new
LP group. What, specifically, does the one new LP group offer that
the two existing LP groups don't? The only thing we use LP for anyway
is bug tracking, and we don't need two bug trackers for each project.
Besides, I'm not a big fan of running projects by voting anyway. If
someone is trying to create a bigger voting pool to out-vote the
people doing the actual work, they'll just get ignored. "One vote per
patch" has always been my motto - meaning those who are willing to do
the work get to decide what they do. I've been trying to empower
people who want to do the work, too.
> Consensus requires talking things out, not politically battling
> things out.
I don't recall any discussion about why we'd need a third LP group or
duplicate bug trackers. I'm as surprised by this as everyone else.
> If no consensus emerges, fork it all. See what that does for you.
This doesn't appear to be a fork, this appears to be a new "we are
geda" page.
- Raw text -