incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From floris v <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Review of Forums Agreement
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:15:02 GMT
Op 18-10-2011 9:58, Ross Gardler schreef:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Oct 18, 2011 1:56 AM, "Rob Weir"<>  wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton<>
> wrote:
>>> The stated [DISCUSS] expiration of midnight, today, 2011-10-17T24:00Z
> has arrived.
>>> The discussion has quieted and there appears to be no objection to
> conducting a [VOTE] ratifying the PPMC acceptance of the proposal, with the
> modest adjustments that were made.
>>> On a different thread, it was observed that, since there is no further
> discussion, and there was no opposition, the proposal should be considered
> ratified, a sort of lazy consensus:
>>> <
>> .
>>> I want to be clear, that this [DISCUSS] was not for voting but to review
> the proposal in preparation for voting.  Although it might be assumed that
> there is no objection to the proposal's adoption by the PPMC, that was not
> the question.
> This is fundamental to the process of lazy consensus. If an objection is not
> raised during discussion how can people consider the merit of that
> objection? There should be no discussion in a vote thread, all opinions
> should already have been heard.
>>> I am also concerned that the Forum operators are being
> denied an important ceremonial act on our part.
> On the contrary. Avoiding the need to vote is the most important part of
> consensus building in an Apache project.
> Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about getting
> stiff done.
The forum staff also really want to get things done. We also have a kind 
of lazy consensus, but there really was very little discussion here, and 
that might be due to general agreement as well as a general lack of 
interest. After all the user forums are so far an alien element in the 
Apache developers community. I can perfectly imagine that most of the 
committers think on the line of WTF (many of the questions on the forum 
are from people who didn't RTFM, others didn't search the forum, and a 
few actually report bugs or ask for features, and some of both have 
already been filed years ago),  just as something like 90 % of the posts 
on the mailing list is totally irrelevant for the average forum 
volunteer.  We seem to have some 60-90 volunteers (some 60 on the EN 
forum, and more on the others who maybe never post on the EN one) and of 
those only 35 voted for or against the proposal.
A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how 
many people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but 
you get the point) the project to vote.

>>> Since it would take as long to introduce a lazy consensus, now, as to
> actually conduct the [VOTE], I intend to go ahead with the [VOTE] once I
> come up with an appropriate wording and message.  Then it will all be clear,
> won't it?
> If there are no objections and the discussion has run it's course then one
> can assume lazy consensus has already been achieved.
> All that being said, this is a new community, calling the odd vote that is
> not necessary will not cause harm. Getting bogged down in endless process
> will, however cause delays and frustration. My post is about the longer
> term.
>> Actually, I object to the ceremony of a poorly motivated vote..  There
>> were no objections to the proposal.  The forum volunteers should go
>> ahead and implement the proposal.
> +1
> If Dennis really feels it is necessary to give a last chance for objection
> (it's good to be inclusive) simply state that we believe consensus has been
> reached. In the meantime, if I were a forum volunteer I'd be making my
> preparations already. The volunteers will be doing the work, the only person
> who can object now is someone implementing an alternative and no such person
> has been seen in all the time discussing.
> Ross

View raw message