"Jorge Mare" <kokitomare@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Jonas Sundstrom <jonas@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: ... > >> > Its not undue to honor their commitment. > >> > >> Grouping devs that have clearly excelled > >> above the rest into a blanket list with the > >> rest does less honor to their commitment IMO. > > > > I don´t understand what you mean by blanket list. > > You said, and I quote: > > "The credit list is development-centric, and > developers are simply the contributors who > have shown endurance, staminay and loyalty. > Its not undue to honor their commitment." Implied continuation: "by setting them apart in a special list of top contributers". I was arguing for the current split of top contributors / the rest of us. (But I was not, IMO and IIRC, arguing for, or against, keeping it developer-centric.) > The Developer list is very long, and to me putting > the few outstanding devs together with the larger > pool developers would be like a blanket generalization > that would not do justice to them. So it seems we agree on the split. ... > some people that are adopting tasks do not have the > right to vote and/or edit the wiki. These people are > being left out a priori for the wrong reason (because > they do not have SVN access), and that exposes the flaw in the > criteria. Maybe we could try a 2-chamber organization with - a primary governing grop (comitters and select non-developers) - a secondary advisory group where anyone who cares can join. Votes would be split of course, and the advisory group might want to try to stay ahead of the votes of the governing group. Or we could continue having vidid mailinglist battles. :) But I´m sure there will always be discussion regardless of how we organize ourselves. ... > So like you, I also hope that something like marketing > can be steered by people from that specific line of > expertise, and that things like release naming are > voted by those people and not open to everyone. I understand that you feel that way about your expertise. I´m okay with delegating marketing, legal, etc. But I believe a project such as Haiku should be driven by developers. The target should not be to succeed but to build something great. Follow through with the idea. (Almost like a slug leaving the gun.) Darwinism will take do the rest. Marketing or legal or anything else should not have power to change the trajectory, even when the project appears to be failing. If that would happen there are other ways to continue for us as individuals, joining other projects, reusing code, picking up gardening, learning to fly (AtheOS), .... Just my subjective opinions. I´m sure a lot of people here feel differently. I´m not speaking for anyone but myself here. /Jonas.