I think Larry's point here is good; even if it turns out that Linus is an
immortal, the growing use of Linux may make a single arbiter of good taste
impractical or undesirable for kernel development.
However, we can't argue with the fact that the current development model has
worked well, and is currently working.
I think a few semantic changes would allow the current model to continue in
use, and make it easier to cope with the possibility of a non-Linus-arbited
kernel.
As an example, instead of writing a patch and posting to l-k with the comment
"How about this one, Linus?", posting with a "all knowledgable persons with
the time and inclination to do so, please forward comments to me" could help.
Sort of a mini-RFC process if you will. It would encourage others to
consider the larger issues of the design of the kernel and future direction
when writing patches, or when commenting on others work.
Once a concensus is arrived at, it can then be submitted to Linus for approval.
In the event that Linus is unable or unwilling to sit in judgement over
patches, a loose panel of experts could serve in his place. The mini-RFC
process serves to help people work together to moderate as a group.
Just my $0.02.
Charles
-- ---------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <charlesc-linux@qcc.sk.ca> Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. ----------------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/