axiom-developer
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: votes


From: Martin Rubey
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: votes
Date: 18 Jul 2007 13:40:49 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4

Dear Ayal,

Ayal <address@hidden> writes:

> A democracy is not always the best approach. 

I only claim that it would be the best for axiom, because of many differing,
and very strong opinions, and because it is at the moment, and probably even in
future, just not necessary to have only one version of axiom.  Axiom is modular
enough to have ten versions living next to each other.

> Linux is complex enough that you don't want a beginner messing up the code.

I don't mind if somebody messes up code in some branch.  But democracy (in the
version I proposed) will ensure that code is not messed up in trunk.  Not
having democracy will not save you from having messed up code.

> You need the lead maintainer and his trusted lieutenants to verify that
> patches adhere to the long-term vision of the system.

If you read my proposal carefully, you will have noticed that I would in fact
like to have different visions being pursued, in different branches, of course.

> The people committed to maintaining the system (for the next 30 years no
> less!) *have* to understand all the parts of the system, and agree with
> how it is set up.

Axiom is very fortunate: the algebra is (nearly) completely decoupled from the
interpreter and the compiler.  And all of this has very little to do with the
build system.  The situation is very very different from Maxima, for example.

> The trusted lieutenants are not voted in through a democracy, but assigned
> the role by the lead maintainer, the leader, the visionary, the owner of the
> branch, who calls the shots in the end.

That's roughly the way it is at the moment, and that's why I decided to quit.
If the democratic model or a variation of it is adopted, I'll come back and
contribute.

> A democracy will not automatically lead to better decisions per se in *every*
> situation.  More specifically, when you have a situation where a certain
> group is better informed than another group, you need to have the
> better-informed group make the decisions.

The voting system I proposed relies on cooperation just as every other system
does.  Usually people do not vote on issues they do not understand, if they are
really interested in the system moving forward.  But really, most of the time
I'd guess that problematic issues are not well understood by anybody.  In this
case, democracy can help.

> I am not suggesting that developing a CAS is similar to warfare, but one
> aspect of it is the same; you have a group of better-informed individuals who
> are better suited to making decisions.

I'd say until recently there was exactly one person in the axiom project, that
would understand most of axiom.  Now, since he has left, there remains none.  I
guess, I understand a big part of the algebra.  But I do not have a clue about
the build system.

> Better to have them take the lead than to use a democracy and allow every one
> to vote with equal weight.

No, history (in the real world) demonstrated that sooner or later this style
will be problematic for many people.

> It is essential that every one working on a branch has the same vision.

In this case, axiom can stop development immediately.

Martin





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]