>The linux model is obviously democracy. You don't even need 50% of votes to fork the kernel:
... So far Linux does not have significant forks - that means that system works.
Forking is individual freedom and not a form of government. Actually a key part of democracy
is that "majority rules", which is obviously >50%. I agree it's important that the possibility
of forking exists, as i wrote
"...As long as people are free to go their own way and leave(fork), it counters the arbitrary
power of maintainers for the specific project(with name)."
>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
Yes rules is always an complication. I don't disagree with this. The linux model has obviously
worked. But that doesn't make it a democracy.
My gripe was about the use of democracy as the true solution for all problems. If that holds,
then for linux to be a solution, we must argue that it is some kind of democracy.