fineract-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrle Krantz <mkra...@mifos.org>
Subject Re: How to get our processes bootstrapped
Date Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:07:14 GMT
Hi guys,

'Tis the nature of democracy that you will vote for winning proposals more
often then you will vote for losing proposals.  But you will occasionally
vote for a loser. Based on your three vetoes ;o) I've adjusted the
document.  Any objections to it's current form?

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Changing+Processes

Greets,
Myrle


*Myrle Krantz*
Solutions Architect
RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org
<http://facebook.com/mifos>  <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>


On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> +1 - some things are so important it is worth piling on when there is
> nothing to add...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:26 AM
> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How to get our processes bootstrapped
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Myrle Krantz <mkrantz@mifos.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Fins,
> > >
> > > We've been having discussions about what processes we want, but we
> > haven't
> > > agreed yet on how to institute processes or how to change them once
> > > we've instituted them.  I've put my thoughts on the matter into a
> > > short
> > document
> > > here:
> > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcwi
> > > ki.apache.org%2fconfluence%2fdisplay%2fFINERACT%2fChanging%2bProcess
> > > es&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c47448b01623d455f867
> > > 008d3125b4258%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ooVkiIT0u
> > > vdM81Gk6y%2bHPVruQhP3qiRjQEz4U0DmATA%3d
> > >
> > > I'd love to read your opinions on the matter too.
> >
> > In general, my strong advise to any young community is to avoid formal
> > votes as a plague. At its core ASF runs on natural, not forced
> > consensus. Any time there's a natural consensus -- you really don't
> > need a vote. Any time there's a formal vote as a forcing function to a
> > consensus -- you inevitably end up creating winners and losers. You
> > really don't need that. At least not while the community is still
> > young (and even when it grows up -- you don't
> > *really* need it).
> >
>
> I absolutely concur with the above. VERY MUCH.
>
> Roman is right: there is no need to define winners/losers. Consensus means
> "those who agree" and "those who disagree, but will abide with the will of
> the community." Don't separate the groups. Just understand they will exist,
> and move onwards. A simple discussion is enough, and any real disagreement
> will surface at that time.
>
> In the 15 years that Apache Subversion has existed, the community has
> taken a formal vote only TWICE. One was for a code formatting choice where
> clear consensus wasn't present, and the other... I don't even know. We've
> gone a DECADE without a vote. ... yet Apache Subversion is one of the most
> popular pieces of software on the planet and has had over a hundred
> releases.
> Clearly, a community doesn't require voting to be successful.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message