There have been various people positing that Debian is a democracy. It’s not, thank god. Yes, we do occasionally vote on issues, but that does not a democracy make.
Another theory often advanced (usually as a counter to the democracy theory) is that Debian is a meritocracy. Again, this is not true: as above, there are shades of truth (as in merit, in theory, is held in reverence in Debian).
Why is it not a democracy? Well, we do not decide on issues based on popularity (else we’d be distributing windows share-ware). We make decisions based on technical merits, and principles we have agreed on (the Social Contract, for one). A developer is the Czar for the packages maintained by him/her, for example.
Decisions, for the most part, are taken by those who do the work (in flex, and fvwm, I have made decisions that are fairly unpopular with the user base, but, in my opinion, the correct ones). A developer has control over his or her package. The NM team decides to accept (or not) applicants — but not through GR’s. The DPL decides who should get funded for debconf — in consultation with other people, but not via a vote. In a sense, Debian is a volunteerocracy — Those who do, rule.
Why do I say it is not a meritocracy? Well, there is no evidence that merit is a gating factor for entry into the project, or a position in Debian. Sure, a modicum of bare competence and a base demonstration of judgement is required, both for entry into the project, and for appointment to a delegate’s job; but this is a minimum threshold, really. The important jobs are fulfilled by people who took it upon themselves, who went in and started working (my first real package, kernel-package, was just me getting tired of remembering all the steps needed to compile kernels, and the resulting kernel images were quietly accepted after a probation period). So, merit is not the gating factor — demonstrating readiness to do the work trumps ability.
I am sure there are a large number of more meritorious people in the wings who never stepped up to the plate and volunteered; and they would lose out to people who stepped up and presented something. We are a volunteerocracy, not a meritocracy.
Why do I say thank god above? Do we really want Debian to be a democracy? I am not a domain expert in any but a small subset of technical topics, and I would hesitate to have my opinion overrule the domain expert’s. And yet that is what going for popularity gives you. In all but a handful of topics, most of us represent mediocrity, and only the domain expert represents expertise; decisions by laymen, as opposed to the experts, lead to mediocrity.
So, do we really want democracy? Rule by the unwashed masses? Governance by the least common denominator? Taking the popular route, over determining the correct one? How can you create the best distribution ever by bending over backwards to pander to mediocrity? Would one want to select leaders based on how cute they look, or how well they kiss babies (which seems to be the basis we pick politician’s by)?
Thanks for listening.