incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:05:05 GMT


On 10/18/2011 8:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Shane Curcuru<asf@shanecurcuru.org>  wrote:
>> Sigh.
>>
>> On 10/18/2011 7:45 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> <grobmeier@gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, floris v<florisv59@gmail.com>   
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 18-10-2011 9:58, Ross Gardler schreef:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about
>>>>>> getting
>>>>>> stiff done.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if it is because of my limited english skills, but are we
>>>> really discussing to leave out the vote?
>>>>
>>>> The discussion around the forums was very hot. I don't think this is
>>>> pure ceremony to have a vote. Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>>>> with this vote too!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Think of it this way:  With Lazy Consensus, any single committer can
>>> veto a proposal.  With a vote, all you need to approve is that 51% of
>>> voters approve.  So Lazy Consensus is harder to reach.  It is the
>>> stricter requirement.
>>>
>>> So if you already have consensus (lack of objections) then why have a
>>> redundant vote?
>>
>> There's another side to this: if sufficient people want to have a vote - for
>> whatever reasons, be it clearing their conscience or whatever - then I
>> recommend that they JFDI.
>>
>> A key issue for communities is to let the whole community work together.
>>   When part of the community wants to do something new, even if someone
>> thinks it's a dumb idea, as long as the idea isn't harmful, then why are you
>> standing in the way?
>>
>> With code, it's fairly simple; we can measure conformance tests or
>> performance numbers.  With social issues it is indeed harder to judge. But
>> if that many other people want to hold a vote, then I say let them.
>>
>>> I'm also concerned about this on policy grounds.  What precedent does
>>> this set?  For example, if at some future time, if I have a proposal
>>> to make, and I think it may have some opposition, may I request that
>>> it be voted on (approved by 51%) rather than go through lazy consensus
>>> (lack of veto)?  Doesn't think encroach on the rights of the committer
>>> to veto a proposal?
>>
>> I think you are approaching this whole project from a perspective faaaaaar
>> too rooted in detail oriented, formal policy, standards setting background.
>>   Just because the PPMC holds a vote on this issue does not set a policy in
>> stone that votes must always be held on every issue (or on any kind of
>> issue).  It just
>>
>> The Apache Way is like Zen.  There are some rules and plenty of guidelines,
>> but it's really about having a healthy community that listens to each other
>> and works towards consensus.
>>
>
> Shane, it should be obvious to a stone that I am advocating the Zen
> approach of just taking the lazy consensus and moving forward to it.
> Your uncalled for personal attacks denigrating my standards experience
> does not change this.  Remember, Dennis also has a background in
> standards (he's on a committee that I chair) and he, not I,  is the
> one pushing for unnecessary greater process around this.

Apologies if my poor choice of words offended, it was not meant to.  But 
I don't have the brainpower to add anything else to your discussion at 
the moment.

Personally, I'd love to see a [VOTE] thread on the forum migration issue 
if for nothing else than to show the forum volunteers the amount of 
support they have here.  I get the impression that they think "we" 
really don't like them, and I have to say that a significant number of 
them have mentioned the style of your participation in the forum threads 
as the specific reason for that.  Personally, I think the social and 
community aspect of this migration is far more important than procedural 
issues.

- Shane, realizing he also hasn't had breakfast yet, which could explain 
some things.

> Now is the time for the forum admins, moderators and volunteers to
> decide if they want to go forward, based on the lazy consensus
> received.  Or whether they want to tie this up in another week of
> procedural wrangling.  And for what purpose?.  Personally I'd
> recommend that they JFDI.
>
> -Rob
>
>> Also, I really question if a significant percentage of the rest of the PPMC
>> has a similar shared understanding to this view in terms of how rigid you
>> seem to see policies everywhere.  Given that the podling is only a few
>> months old, and it's made up of primarily new committers, I expect any
>> "rules" here to be changed a few times before graduation.
>>
>>>
>>> IMHO, we should be voting on things in only two situations:
>>>
>>> 1) Where the Apache process requires it, e.g., releases, new committers,
>>> etc.
>>
>> And please note Christian's comment:
>>>> Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>>>> with this vote too!
>>
>> Really?  Who - specifically - are we adding to the PMC?  Does everyone on
>> this thread really have the same understanding of what this proposal does?
>>
>> PMC or committer additions are one of the things that do require a vote, and
>> that's a rule you can't break.  It should also be a separate vote for each
>> individual being added.
>>
>> - Shane
>>
>>> 2) Where prolonged discussion and good faith efforts have failed to
>>> reach a consensus and we're forced to have a vote to choose from
>>> alternatives
>>>
>>> I don't think we should allow a proposer to self-select a decision
>>> making method (a vote) that requires a lesser degree of consensus.  If
>>> we allowed this, then wouldn't we decide every question via a vote?
>>> What proposer would not prefer to have the lesser requirement of 51%
>>> approval rather than risk a veto when calling for lazy consensus?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>

Mime
View raw message