<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffcc" text="#000000"> Michiel Sikma wrote: <blockquote cite="mid427B544B-B8EA-410B-84F2-8C51B034C4C8@avalanchestudios.net" type="cite">That's right. Like I said, I do think that it's a very good idea to work with the community so that we may get feedback from them, but I don't think that it's right to put much weight on such opinions. Julian's mail made kind of made it seem so, but I guess he too thinks that community votes don't make up a good final decision. </blockquote> It's perhaps worth pointing out that Ubuntu is NOT a democracy. We have open processes, open governance, and transparency throughout. But we also try to get the "best" person to execute a given part of it, and give them freedom to do it the way THEY think is best. We draw the best talent from the community, then we give it the authority to run with it's vision, even if there are voices trying to slow it down. So it's part meritocracy (we try and pick the best talent for any given component), part autocracy (there's a strong line of command through each of the teams and ultimately up to the community council) and part do-ocracy (showing up with code/art/docs counts for a lot more than adding a me-too comment to a feature request). I would like to follow this pattern with the art team. I fully expect to have to make tough decisions about who I ask to take which bit of responsibility. And I expect us to create a "scratch pad" where dissenters, new ideas and alternative contributions can go, so that there is a PLACE for any opinion but there is also a clear line of authority to take decisions that is NOT democratic. Mark </body> </html>