Ugh, this is a lot of words for nothing.

1. I laid down what I perceived as the state of things. The generalizations I drew from observing the system that is Linux development. Nowhere have I prescribed that kent "follow" my ideas. Simply that he can use these to try to understand the unfairness he feels.

2. Your anarcho-individualistic development ideas sound good in theory, but if they ever worked in practice we might have seen it be more widespread than it is today in team sizes > 3.

You should also note that if the oring is labelled experimental and there's an expectation of failure, it's development and testing will not stop the launch. The shuttle leaves when it leaves, it won't wait for the experimental oring to be done to your liking.

> Simply that he can use these to try to understand the unfairness he feels.

You're suggesting he deal with unfairness by internalizing it as virtue? That's how to make people who cheer at other people's failures.

> Your anarcho-individualistic development ideas sound good in theory

Thanks for illustrating my point. No project, >3 or <= 3, has ever made any new technology by adopting as a tenet that social agreement inside the project is more important than correctly modeling the world outside it, and you're suggesting I'm using inefficiently agreeable-sounding words to express it.