According to Chaim Frenkel: > Given that most topics do not have unanimous approval. What will be > the decision making policy (and we have to include the > meta-discussion of how the decision making policy itself will be > determined.) I don't think anyone yet feels comfortable enough to answer that question. First, Larry is still involved in Perl 6. He doesn't fit the role of executive, by his own admission. But he's a very good Supreme Court. Therefore, I don't worry too much about any bad organizational decisions we might make early on. They can always be declared unconstitutional and revised if they cause problems. Also, our nascent project structure includes a post of Project Manager (a.k.a. Lord High Everything Else). He has general authority to make miscellaneous decisions not covered by more specific posts. So, in a sense, we still have the same old benevolent dictatorship, but with an extra level of indirection. In another sense, we're just finally facing reality. Larry's absence from daily discussion has left us relatively unsupervised for a long time now, but we were generally unwilling to face it, knowing the chaos that could result from a careless transition. Now we're finally making a new system that doesn't require Larry to decide everything. As a (paradoxical) result, I expect that core development will be more orderly and productive than it has been in recent memory. As for voting: I've seen a few people mention votes as part of some process or other. But without formal membership in an organization (a la Debian, and let's *not* go there!) I don't see how voting could actually be a useful part of a political process. It can only be used for opinion polls. The IETF has one thing right: "Rough consensus and working code." -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <chip@valinux.com> "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3KThread Previous | Thread Next