Yup. The only working model
Posted Apr 22, 2008 0:15 UTC (Tue) by khim
In reply to: ELC: Morton and Saxena on working with the kernel community
Parent article: ELC: Morton and Saxena on working with the kernel community
A democracy with no voting and judges that have no rules. Don't claim the linux model is a democracy then, it obviously isn't.
The linux model is obviously democracy. You don't even need 50% of votes to fork the kernel: 10-15% of developers will be enough. See: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc. So far Linux does not have significant forks - that means that system works. The fact that there are no known rules is advantage, not weakness. If you have written rules you have a way to game the system, but if the only way to get anything done is rough consensus it's much harder. Take a look on Microsoft's attack on two systems: IETF (no strict rules) and ISO (rigid structure with a lot of bureaucracy). First attack failed: after four years SenderID is still "an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community" and not "an Internet standard of any kind". Second attack succeded: now we have this huge mess called ISO/IEC 29500 standard.
Rules are means to speed up decision process, nothing more - when they are allowed to work as substitute for common sense bad things happens.
to post comments)