incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [migration] Decision making
Date Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:33:15 GMT
It's wonderful to see this project getting to this stage so quickly.

In my experience a grasp of the lazy consensus approach is a really
significant step in becoming a viable ASF style community. It's fantastic to
see these issues being raised and clearly addressed by the community.

>From what I have read so far this thread fully reflects decision making in
an ASF project (both Rob's initial response and subsequent clarifications).

If folk want to hear my version of this thread take a look at my ODF
Plugfest presentation and accompanying video ( video
linked from comments).


On Thursday, 25 August 2011, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Donald Whytock <>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>> But again, objections must be from committers, backed with
>>> technical arguments and the willingness to implement alternatives.
>> The Apache voting policy page you linked agrees that binding votes are
>> from committers, and that "all others are either discouraged from
>> voting (to keep the noise down) or else have their votes considered of
>> an indicative or advisory nature only."
>> But some things may require noise.  I for one am essentially lurking
>> here as a user, watching the progress of the product on its way to
>> becoming once again current and viable.  I'm technical, but have never
>> touched the guts of OOo.
>> So if you bring up a change, presented as a lazy-concensus proposal,
>> and I think it would adversely affect my experience as a user, I'd
>> very much like to be able to object, even if my objection is
>> non-binding.  I can't stop you, but on the other hand I'd rather you
>> not stop me.
> The distinction here is between decision making with lazy consensus
> versus voting.  Voting is a formal procedure, and something we do only
> when required by the process (voting in new committers, approving
> releases, etc.) or in other (hopefully) rare occasions.  A formal vote
> would occur in its own [VOTE] thread, but would be preceded first by a
> [DISCUSS] thread on the same topic.  So your feedback is always
> welcome, especially in the [DISCUSS] thread.
> This distinction may not be obvious, since we've only had private
> votes in this project so far, for voting in new committers.  Apache
> requires these be private votes.
> A [PROPOSAL] thread is not a vote.  It is someone saying what they'd
> like to do and seeing if there are any strong objections.  If there
> are not, then the proposer will go forward.  Anyone can comment on the
> proposal thread, but my previous comments apply: please comment
> judiciously.  If you think the proposer has goofed or is about to
> goof, and this is a big problem, then by all means, speak up.  The
> project benefits from that.  But with 200 subscribers to the list, if
> we all make minor comments based on slight preferences, then we end up
> with a mess.  Best (IMHO) if we hold back and only comment where and
> when it matters most.
>> Don

Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)

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