[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