Governance of Wine with respect to the Software Freedom Conservancy (update October 2011)

Juan Lang juan.lang at
Fri Oct 7 14:49:03 CDT 2011

> As I said, our overlords are kind and benevolent and I'm sure that the
> mention of "evil plans" was simply a joke as such wise and noble
> developers could need harbor a malevolent thought. But, unless I've
> been misreading this mailing list, all patches have to go through our
> current enlightened leader before becoming part of the patch count in
> the wine tree. Not that the powers that be are susceptible to
> temptation, but lesser mortals might find that being more selective
> about whose patches are accepted during periods of discontent as an
> easy way to influence such a vote. Likewise, even if such a mortal
> didn't give into temptation, if the usurpers lose the vote they could
> always claim such impropriety did take place.

My point is that the math isn't in your argument's favor.  It would
take a long period of rejection by the current overlords before being
able to squelch any hypothetical usurpers, given that a) the current
overlords' contributions consist of Alexandre's, and b) he does not
constitute a controlling majority of contributions, nor anywhere close
to it.

More information about the wine-devel mailing list