Data Suggests CoC + Outreachy Hasn't Helped Increase Female Participation In Debian

[ms178]

the constitution of USA and Germany was never set in place by grassroot democratic vote.

I am aware of the whole discussion around it but this opinion is not shared by any respected legal scholar as it doesn't take into account that you don't actually need a plebiscite on a constitution for its legitimization. A chain of legitimation is enough. For the Grundgesetz, the members of the Parlamentarischer Rat which formed the constitution consisted of representatives from the federal states which were elected democratically. Also Art. 144 GG required a two thirds majority in the federal states to get enacted, and they got those votes.

[lyamc]

Replacing judges with "democratic votes" is a terrible idea. That's just legalizing angry mobs.

[qarium]

I get your point in questioning the legitimacy of the judiciary, but direct democratic legitimation would pose different dangers as you would need to be concerned about the effect of campaign contributions on the independence of the judiciary. Or populism.
I cannot share this view from my own experience with the court system so far but of course you'd need legal representation as law is more often than not complicated and the whole process law is not laymen-friendly at all (with the sole exception of the social sector). But as there are processes in place to get financial help for legal litigation and advise, the legal system is not just there for the haves vs. the have-nots. Could the system be improved upon? Sure, as there are many shortcomings - but the whole process is still better than anarchy.
The judges I worked with did not take their decisions lightly although I would have decided things differently from time to time. I am sure you can find toxic people in the system and that being a dogmatist by profession has an impact on their characters sooner or later. But there are checks in place with appellate courts and higher courts to be as fair as possible (as judges also do make mistakes such as every other human). Again, it is not perfect but better than anarchy.
The judiciary is one of the three powers and even it is not as often in the spotlight of the media in Germany, it is a powerful institution nonetheless which also justifies the high qualification requirements to be part of it (with the exception of laymen judges in some branches to assist and check on the professional judge).

the propaganda against populism comes only from the elites who want the elite to rule. Populism only means that the elite does not rule and instead the 99% we the people rule. for sure all elites hate populism because it is against their power structure of elite tyranny.

the complete concept of this judiciary system is to be anti-laymen-friendly to make sure poor people lose against rich people with expensive laywer teams.

"But as there are processes in place to get financial help for legal litigation and advise"

i am on wellfare and i can say for sure this is not the case the people who are there to help you if you are on wellfare are only low skilled people and you only get help if they think you are right and because they are low skilled people and nothing compared to the elite expensive laywer teams you will only get 1% of your rights and 99% of what you could have if you have elite laywer team is just flushed down the toilets. the people who decide if you get a laywer on wellfare or not are not even laywers. and then you get only very cheap laywers on wellfare nothing compared to the elite expensive laywers.

"the legal system is not just there for the haves vs. the have-nots."

o yes yes yes it is only exactly this. the german law system is a joke. the courtroom is a ship the judge is a captain and the rich elite people always claim to be administrator of their person and the pooe people in courtrooom are only "Persons" without any rights.

"Could the system be improved upon?"

this is only the case if we have no Judges anymore and start to have grassroot courtes. Judges by definition are part of the elites so the elites will always rule in favor of the elites. and poor people will always get a hit from the elites.

"The judges I worked with did not take their decisions lightly although I would have decided things differently from time to time."

this just proof that our judiciary system is a joke. we need a judiciary system without such a possibility.
HELL EVEN A AI BASED COURT SYSTEM WITHOUT JUDGES WOULD BE BETTER.

"I am sure you can find toxic people in the system and that being a dogmatist by profession has an impact on their characters sooner or later."

the point is: Judges by definition are "Elites" and elites will always rule in favor of elites. if we remove elites from power means no more judges then we will have the justice we want

"(as judges also do make mistakes such as every other human"

well well well lets remove all judges and set a AI in place or grassroot court everything is better than judges who are part of the elites.

[qarium]

I am aware of the whole discussion around it but this opinion is not shared by any respected legal scholar as it doesn't take into account that you don't actually need a plebiscite on a constitution for its legitimization. A chain of legitimation is enough. For the Grundgesetz, the members of the Parlamentarischer Rat which formed the constitution consisted of representatives from the federal states which were elected democratically. Also Art. 144 GG required a two thirds majority in the federal states to get enacted, and they got those votes.

in my point of view a Constitution without grassroot democratic vote has no legitimization.

"this opinion is not shared by any respected legal scholar"

i really don't care about your Elite respected scholars. the elite will always only give the elite right and the 99% people will never get anything from these people.

"Grundgesetz, the members of the Parlamentarischer Rat which formed the constitution consisted of representatives from the federal states which were elected democratically."

wrong. the grundgesetz was subject to approval of the Allied Control Councild
Germany is a occupation zone of the US the germans have no power at all. germany is not sovereign
the Constitution court in germany ruled 3 times that in the last 75 years there was no legitime democratic vote.

Proof that ther was never any Legitim Democratic vote:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cberhangmandat#Reform_wegen_Verfassungswidrigkeit

also the grundgesetz itself proof that it is not a Constitution :

"Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Art 146
Dieses Grundgesetz, das nach Vollendung der Einheit und Freiheit Deutschlands für das gesamte deutsche Volk gilt, verliert seine Gültigkeit an dem Tage, an dem eine Verfassung in Kraft tritt, die von dem deutschen Volke in freier Entscheidung beschlossen worden ist."

grungesetz in english is NOT Constituion it is "basic law" and Art 146 said that germany need to make REAL Constituion.

[qarium]

Replacing judges with "democratic votes" is a terrible idea. That's just legalizing angry mobs.

all talk about angry mobs... no one talks about angry Elites...

now my question to you: can Elites not be Angry ? do they have no feelings ?

the only system without feelings would be a AI based judge.

[lyamc]

In a mob, your smartest person is the dumbest person

Why shouldn’t you have people that have a track record of being balanced and fair be in charge? Someone has to be in charge.

And besides, there’s reasons why the government is split into different authorities: it lessens the spikes of angry people.

That being said, every system, no matter how good, will always end up with so much baggage at some point that everyone is going to have to stop what they’re doing and throw out the garbage.

[qarium]

In a mob, your smartest person is the dumbest person

this claim is not backed up by science at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Why shouldn’t you have people that have a track record of being balanced and fair be in charge? Someone has to be in charge.

wrong as i can see we have like 3 options: the ELITE is in charge thats the current system a "Judge"
second is grassroot democratic vote system by this no one of the elites is in charge only the collective intelligence.
or 3. option a AI is in charge.

I do not want to be pushed arround by the elites. and in the past human history it was always some kind of elites in charge.

And besides, there’s reasons why the government is split into different authorities: it lessens the spikes of angry people.

The myth that only the mob can be angry and the elites and the judges have no feeling at all
i think a judge can also be angry.

That being said, every system, no matter how good, will always end up with so much baggage at some point that everyone is going to have to stop what they’re doing and throw out the garbage.

right. but i think it is the time that the elite drop their power and let the 99% rule for the first time in history.

and i do not talk about the Red Nobility/communists who claimed to be the 99% but in reality they where elites who just fooled everyone.

[lyamc]

this claim is not backed up by science at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality

You know, for someone who talks a lot about IQ I find it surprising that you don’t seem to have much yourself.

The myth that only a mob

Never said that

wrong as i can see we have like 3 options

No. There is only ever one option: someone is in charge. In a group of people there will be a “leader”, and that person tends to be the most competent of the group.

It would be great if you could stop your incoherent ranting and get back on topic, if you have something new to add.

[duby229]

right. but i think it is the time that the elite drop their power and let the 99% rule for the first time in history.

and i do not talk about the Red Nobility/communists who claimed to be the 99% but in reality they where elites who just fooled everyone.

First let me just say, I have no clue at all what I'm talking about when I talk about politics...

So I think it is proof beyond doubt that mobs will always be influenced by the elite... Just look at the Trump supporter retards that stormed the U.S. Capitol a few weeks ago... They did it strictly because -TRUMP- organized it and told them to!!! The mob did what they did, but it was Trump who influenced them to do it!!

[qarium]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Isn't it funny you have a wikipedia link and i have a wikipedia link to.
you claim something like your link proof the mob is stupid and my link claims the mob has intelligence.

You know, for someone who talks a lot about IQ I find it surprising that you don’t seem to have much yourself.

believe it ot not my IQ is well above average. for sure you will not believe it.
but who cares? i do not have a ego that is hurt if you do not believe in me.

in general i can say phoronix.com readers and phoronix forum writers have in average a IQ well above average.
even these left/BLM/communits here are in this cadegory.
looks like stupid people have no interest in computer science or tech and because of this they do not follow phoronix.com .

this means to call here anyone stupid like you do "about IQ I find it surprising that you don’t seem to have much yourself"
is right next to insanity. just write something outside a tech forum and you will be stunned how stupid people can be.

No. There is only ever one option: someone is in charge. In a group of people there will be a “leader”, and that person tends to be the most competent of the group.
It would be great if you could stop your incoherent ranting and get back on topic, if you have something new to add.

you do not want grassroot judge system and i do not want elite judge so maybe talk about an AI system.
for sure the AI system should be opensource and also FLOSS.
if many people help to develop the opensource code in a way everyone or lets say 75% can agree to(grassroot vote) then your claim a "Leader" is in charge is a complete lie. because in such a system no single person would be a "Leader"
well your interpretation is a little bit different you want a "Leader" like Linus Torvalds for that kind of project.
well why not elect the Leader by grassroot democratic vote ?
or how do you detect that person who rends to be the most competent (Meritocracy) ???
even if i agree that the most competent (Meritocracy) should be the Leader of such a project then still what is your way to detect who is the most competent ? and for sure you claim if we do grassroot democratic vote the leader of a AI judge system it will be not the most competent person because you claim the mob is stupid.

ok just tell me outside of Dictatorshipment who the Leader use military force to come into power how do you detect your most competent Leader ?...