[Opensim-dev] The notion of "core"

[Teravus Ovares]

The Linux kernel is the reason that git was created..    to support
/that/ kind of development, however..    Linus Torvalds still has
final say as to what gets included in the standard Linux kernel.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
Excerpt 1: "About 2% of the Linux kernel as of 2006 was written by
Torvalds himself.[15] Since Linux has had thousands of contributors,
such a percentage represents a significant personal contribution to
the overall amount of code. Torvalds remains the ultimate authority on
what new code is incorporated into the standard Linux kernel.[20]"

See: http://wiki.oss-watch.ac.uk/BenevolentDictatorGovernanceModel
Excerpt 2: "Perhaps the most commonly cited example of a benevolent
dictator model is the Linux Kernel, a project that is under the direct
decision-making leadership of Linus Torvalds. The job of benevolent
dictator is not an easy one. It requires diplomacy and
community-building skills, in-depth technical knowledge of all aspects
of the project, and a level of commitment and dedication that is often
hard to find. However, as the Linux Kernel project illustrates, it can
be a very effective governance model. This document describes the kind
of governance model adopted within this and similar projects. "

Excerpt 3 : Linux for Dummies 8th edition (Wiley Publishing Inc 2007)
ISBN: 978-0-470-11649-4, page 15, chapter 1:
"Who's in charge of Linux Anyway?
As an open source project evolves, various people emerge as the
leaders.  This leader is often known as the project's benevolent
dictator.  A person who becomes benevolent dictator has probably spent
more time then anyone else on a particular problem and often has some
unique insight.  Normally, the words democratic and dictator are never
paired in the same sentence, but the open source model is a very
democratic process that endorses the reigh of a benevolent dictator.

Linus Torvalds is still considered the benevolent dictator of the
Linux kernel (the operating system's core).  He ultimately determines
what features are added to the kenrel and what features aren't.  THe
community trusts his vision and discretion.  In the event that he
looses interest in the project or the community decides that he has
gone senile, a new leader will emerge from amongst the very competent
people working with him."

In conclusion, the quote was not out of context.   This type of
community is alive and well /currently/ in the Linux kernel.     Git
was developed for use in the Linux kernel, and therefore, it isn't the
source control system that dictates the community.

Regards

Teravus



On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Edward Middleton <emiddleton at bebear.net> wrote:
> Frisby, Adam wrote:
>> I disagree.
>>
>> * Commit Rights - those discussions cannot occur in public (although the discussion archives are open to committers after being invited), the reason for this is no-one can be frank & honest without hurting people's feelings.
>>
>> ---
>> From the excellent F/OSS guidebook: http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#electorate
>> "The voting system itself should be used to choose new committers, both full and partial. But here is one of the rare instances where secrecy is ...
>
> I think the quote is a bit out of context, the book was released in 2005
> when most people were using centralized version control systems CVCS
> like subversion.  I can understand making a big deal about commit access
> (or rights if you want to put it that way) when you are working with a
> CVCS because it is pretty constraining to work it,  but aren't you
> moving/have moved to a DVCS[1] (i.e.  git) where having commit access to
> the central repository is something more akin to being the release manager.
>
> Edward
>
> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_revision_control
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>