How exactly do you think an open source software project should be managed? People are going to have disagreements about changes, and there needs to be some method of adjudicating those disagreements. Democracy is near-impossible in those circumstances because key problems like suffrage (who counts as enough of a contributor to have a vote?) are hard to fix, and because actual technical expertise is important to decision-making.
Of course there will be disagreements, but no single person should have so much power as to block changes.
I have no particular care about HAML. But rather the notion that any piece of technology isn't in popular OSS like RoR because one person objects. I find that offensive.
Wikipedia is probably the best example of a project that's run democratically, by consensus at least, and the net result is that more effort is wasted on politicking than actually writing content.
The net result is that its useful, LOTS of content generated, and democratic. Arguing is part of a democracy. I don't mind it.
So benevolent dictatorship it is
For all the talk of freedom, this is disappointing.
| For all the talk of freedom, this is disappointing.
You're incredibly naive then. Freedom comes from the license. You can fork and modify to your heart's content. This is how open source freedom works. If you think you can do it better, then do it better in your project. Rails is not some sort of public good that belongs to the people. It is a project that people work very hard on and then give away. And for anyone to suggest that they should not get to decide how things work on the thing that they give away free of charge and for modification is both ludicrous and makes you sound very ungrateful.
Successful projects are successful because the leaders do a good job. They're good at listening, good at saying no, good at rallying support, and good at working with their users and their team. Your vote is with your shoes.
Of course there will be disagreements, but no single person should have so much power as to block changes.
I have no particular care about HAML. But rather the notion that any piece of technology isn't in popular OSS like RoR because one person objects. I find that offensive.
Wikipedia is probably the best example of a project that's run democratically, by consensus at least, and the net result is that more effort is wasted on politicking than actually writing content.
The net result is that its useful, LOTS of content generated, and democratic. Arguing is part of a democracy. I don't mind it.
So benevolent dictatorship it is
For all the talk of freedom, this is disappointing.