[lpi-discuss] RE: Linux Professional Institute changes Recertification Policy -- the "2 issues, " plus LPI's direction ...

Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith at ieee.org
Mon Dec 4 22:36:18 EST 2006


On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 21:17 -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> The comparisons between LPI, governments and management models of open 
> source projects were making my head hurt. It was certainly not my 
> intention, with what I wrote, to be considered a source of negativism.

I apologize.  I was trying to show that I prefer the Meritocracy "put
up" + Executive "decision" approach versus the Democracy "my opinion
counts" attitude.**

**NOTE:  Where much of this comes from ...

When I was a small-time Debian maintainer, I _never_ gave my opinion
because I _knew_ I did not have the merit to do so.  But I constantly
saw several not-so-worthy people "chastize" some of the much bigger
contributors, including denying maintainer status because of some
non-related politics.  That's what I was alluding to, there is clearly a
_lot_ of Democracy going on.  A _lot_ of it is good (better than Fedora
IMHO/IMPO), but sometimes it's just downright people being _nasty_.

It very much relates to what I see on LPI "Discuss."  A lot of non "put
up" people complaining about many things.  If you don't like what you
see, volunteer!  Many Debian maintainers do!  Of course, again, there
are also a lot of well-publicized incidents of decisions gone wrong.

I truly hope the DCC Alliance can do for Debian what Red Hat has done
with Fedora.  After all, such an alliance of multiple vendors would be
_better_ than what Fedora can offer from 1 vendor's focus.  It's not
that Fedora is perfect.  But when it comes to "Executive Decisions" on
Fedora, they are made, and things move forward _now_, not later.

In fact, you see the opposite out of Fedora.  Some people spewing off
because they got over-riden by the Meritocracy in charge, or at some
point, the Executive who has to move to meet industry demands.  My
favorite was "Blue Curve" -- a simple, unified theme for KDE _and_
GNOME.  It was a decision by and for industry -- that did _not_ change
KDE at all -- but 90% of people I talked to thought it was a change to
KDE's core libraries and applications because of the "rhetoric" of one
person who didn't like the "Executive Decision."

That's all I meant.  Because when it comes to a combination of community
and business needs, most organizations choose Red Hat and Fedora.  I see
a lot of promise in the DCC Alliance and have always recommended the
Progeny attitude of "enterprise management as a process" _over_ Red
Hat's "enterprise is a subscription," but Progeny is not Debian (the DCC
Alliance should be eventually), whereas Fedora is, ultimately, Red Hat.

And that's where the Meritocracy gets its Executive decisions.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith         Professional, Technical Annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org   http://thebs413.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------
        Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution



More information about the lpi-discuss mailing list