Free Flight, Free Speech

Funny to see Hooray doing exactly that at this very moment, Israel.

good analogy, and actually one I had ready in a drafted response to, but refrained from using because I was afraid it could be misinterpreted by some folks ...

http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29670&p=287397#p287397

I wonder where he gets his fear for misinterpretation from. Most probably a case of: Every man's censure is first moulded in his own nature.

Kind regards, Vincent

Well to be honest it wasn't even a close analogy of what FG forum is all about.

Closer would be to say that anyone with a different opinion to the pilot and airstewardesses gets chucked off the plane.... and I could have sworn I'd asked for a Scotch and not an Irish.

This is what "he" said;

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde wrote:But that's the thing - it's a meritocracy based on merits associated with FG. If you work for a 3rd party, you get your say in decisions the 3rd party makes, not in FG.

So the consensus required for a core commit is among FG core developers as has been explained to you a couple of times.

When there's a decision to be made in the cockpit of an aircraft during an emergency, they don't call for a vote of the passengers either - with good reason.

This is what I see: Firstly, it <<has been explained to you a couple of times.>> seems to me a way to say, the fact you don't get it already means you are not smart; I wonder, why can't it just mean, that the other person simply does understand Thorsten point, but just does not agree with it?
Why is Thorsten always resorting to the condescending talk a parent uses when the Kiddo is out of control? Instead of treating us all as capable adults? I don't know!

Secondly, <<When there's a decision to be made in the cockpit of an aircraft during an emergency, they don't call for a vote of the passengers either - with good reason.>>. Let's say I agree. I agree with that being a huge problem. The core developers want to see themselves as the captain in control. On their ways to achieve that, they keep disregarding all input from the rest of the community, including but not limited to: Users, content developers (aircrafts or scenery developers, and 3d and graphic artist, and sound artists), and just forum people in general.

They are shielded behind a certain devel list (where they only listen to their own words), and have a take to Meritocracy, as a term, that just leaves anyone else (new people in particular) out in the wild.

It is not that they don't see themselves as pilot in control. It is a problem in how the core developers are _not_ listening to the people outside, giving them good suggestions on what they would like to see FG become.

Someone once said: <If you want to see FG be something, make it happen>. Well... FGMEMBERS long history shows that even if you make it happen, there is a closed group of pilots (decision makers) that make sure their precious little craft flies to the fate they choose. They call that: "the merit".

SHM wrote:Interesting thing to read.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth#Is_Ubuntu_a_Debian_fork.3F_Or_spoon.3F_What_sort_of_silverware_are_you.2C_man.3F

This quite clarify why FGMEMBERS is designed the way it is!

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:Then we did a ground up rewrite in Python, and the result is Bazaar-NG, or Bzr, which will be Bazaar 2.0 by March 2006. Why is this important? Because passing patches around is not nearly as effective as working in a genuinely distributed revision control system.