Getting LispOS going

Fare Rideau
Fri, 23 May 1997 13:10:28 +0200 (MET DST)

> I think we've got a fundamental problem here, which is that we have no
> means of making a decision. Linux has a benevolent dictatorship, and
> we have anarchy.
There haven't been any acceptable benevolent dictator on the list.
Maybe that's the problem.
Things might be better if we divide into proper subprojects.

> We need to decide on a way to govern this project. [...]

> Citizens referenda is one way,
> (which we used to choose the name "LispOS").
Programming by committee *sucks*. It ain't work.
Count 10 years per standard document.

> So proposals for a constitution are open.
There is one ready for you already:
Just replace "Tunes" by "LispOS", and put the founder,
Richard Coleman, as initial project maintainer...

> The only
> trouble with this is that it's not self-evident that everyone on this
> list was created equal. What I mean is that, not everyone on this list
> is actually going to do anything, except cast in their vote for
> something they know little about.
The Tunes charter handles that: Running Code shall Win.
The one who writes it (or coordinates it)
becomes maintainer for that code.

> Here is an opening suggestion. We form about 6 groups, to which any
> person can only belong to say two. The 6 might be, VM, OOFS,
> utilities, web, and whatever.
Why restrict the groups for a person? Again, under the "running code wins"
model, a member's weight is not proportional to the number of groups
of which he's a member, but to the amount of code that he writes
that other people use.

> Then within that group, voting takes place on which direction
> is going to be taken to move forward.
> Then - guess what - you implement what was voted for,
> whether your idea "won" or not.
Nope, in each group, the local dictator chooses the default direction.
e-votes are just too slow for decision-making. They might be used
to impeach the dictator, and replace him, though.
And the ultimate dictator should be -- Running Code.
If some voters are not satisfied,
let them just implement (then use) their Right Thing instead!