On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Alexandro Colorado <j...@oooes.org> wrote:
> On 9/10/13, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Alexandro Colorado <j...@oooes.org> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Alexandro Colorado <j...@oooes.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I have recently been impact, on this lack of decision making tasks > not > >>> > being followed (ignoring 72 hr limit, etc) basically breaking the > >>> process. > >>> > So I have a few comments on this. > >>> > > >>> > >>> I think you're referring to using "lazy concensus" . > >>> > >>> https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html > >>> https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html > >>> > >>> One of the important aspects of Lazy Consensus is that it should be > >>> stated > >>> at the outset of a communication that this is what will be in effect > for > >>> whatever is proposed. In other words, proposing something and stating > >>> that > >>> you will be using Lazy Consensus to implement whatever it is you might > >>> want > >>> to do is critical to this particular process. > >>> > >>> So far, I am finding 2 threads that seem to relate to all this: > >>> > >>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/hsdepqzlfvh33pdr > >>> (proposals for wiki, forum , web site extensions, etc) > >>> > >>> and yes,I did vote +1 on the one design I saw in the issue and using > it, > >>> but mine was only ONE vote in a series of other comments. > >>> > >>> and this one, more recent > >>> > >>> [2] http://markmail.org/message/wlvv7gsnsmcurwfv > >>> > >>> in which there is claim that something was proposed. Based on the > first > >>> thread, all I see are suggestions for designs and discussion, but no > >>> specific proposal. > >>> > >>> So, no proposal, no broken "lazy consensus" process. > >>> > >>> > >>> > One important part is focusing on the meritocracy aspect of FLOSS. Is > >>> > important not only to have a bug but an 'evidence'. Everyone has the > >>> right > >>> > to a voice and have their opinion on implementations. However I think > >>> that > >>> > the impact of that voice should be accompany with actual evidence, > and > >>> > would go into even having to propose an alternative. Deny things for > >>> > the > >>> > sole case of opinion shouldn't be enforced, > >>> > >>> > >>> We have a process here at the ASF. Denying something, and I take this > to > >>> mean denying implementing something, based on opinion is what > discussion > >>> and building consensus is all about. > >>> > >> > >> Exactly why we should consider a more efficient way of discussing it. (I > >> thought you are proposing changes to the DM process) for the reasons > >> explained. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > otherwise this will leave us > >>> > to have many unverifiable opinions at a very low cost (think of spam > >>> > for > >>> > bitmessage) slowing the project down. > >>> > > >>> > There should also be a 'good enough' flag deadline after a certain > >>> > period > >>> > of time to get out of locked-in discussions. This is usually used on > >>> power > >>> > negotiations (HBR article on the topic: > >>> > http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4354.html). > >>> > > >>> > >>> We have Lazy Consensus and other "decision making" processes.The ideas > >>> in > >>> the article you have above are not the way we make decisions at Apache > >>> OpenOffice. > >>> Lazy Consensus comes close, but, again, this must be explicitly stated > >>> -- > >>> > >> This sounds a bit of a technicality 'you didnt use blue ink to fill out > >> your form' kind of situation. > >> > >> > >> > >>> or else other participants don't have any idea if you're just > discussing > >>> something or actually intend to do something. > >>> > >> > >> Not sure I understand you here. Why would anyone discuss anything for > >> just > >> the fun of discussing it? > >> > > > > Something we do see: Someone talk about an idea, but it is not > > something that they are wiling/able to do. They just think it is a > > good idea. But unless someone volunteers it is just talk. > > > > I'm not saying yours was an example like this, but it is good to be > > explicit. > > > > A semi-humorous example of one approach is here: > > > > http://markmail.org/message/rn2uentbgqipx2a5 > > > > The exact format is not critical, but that is one way a committer can > > make it crystal clear. > > I understand conventions, I would like to see more conventions myself, > I dont understand however when proposal is not a proposal because it > didnt say [PROPOSAL]. We have a similar conversation on using dev@ for > support etc. > In my opinion, to a great extent, it depends on the message content. We don't' always adhere to the [PROPOSAL]/[LAZY PROPOSAL] tag, though that would certainly make things more clear. When I see a statement posted on this list like: "Page X has a false statement on it, and unless anyone objects over the next day or so, I will fix it." regardless of what the subject matter is, I have a pretty good idea that this is a lazy consensus statement, and the sender will likely wait a few days and make the fix. When I see a statement like: "It seems like page x has a false statement on it." and nothing else, I don't interpret that as a lazy consensus proposal, but rather an info item only. I think Rob's suggestions in this thread to augment what is already on the Decision Making page would give folks a better understanding of when to use a [PROPOSAL] or [LAZY CONSENSUS]. I am not trying to change the process, but to add clarity to it. [LAZY CONSENSUS] proposal: Unless there are objections to Rob's suggestions, I will add them to the Decision Making page sometime over the upcoming weekend. > > > > > -Rob > > > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com > > > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > > > The information we currently have on Decision Making can be > >>> > > > > found > >>> in > >>> > > our > >>> > > > > Orientation section: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/decision-making.html > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On that page, there are explanations for types of decision > >>> > > > > making > >>> > used > >>> > > in > >>> > > > > this project specifically and within the Apache Software > >>> Foundation. > >>> > In > >>> > > > my > >>> > > > > opinion, this is very good "how to" guide, but somewhat limited > >>> > > > > as > >>> a > >>> > > > "when > >>> > > > > to" guide. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I drafted the orientation pages based on my understanding. I > >>> > > > didn't > >>> > > > get many comments at the time, so I'm sure there is room for > >>> > > > improvement. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Most of the source code changes done currently are preceded by > a > >>> > > > > BZ > >>> > > > issue. > >>> > > > > This is wonderfully simple and anyone on the commits list can > >>> follow > >>> > > what > >>> > > > > and why something has been done. In other cases, for much > >>> > > > > larger > >>> > > > changes, > >>> > > > > discussions have been initiated. So, we would NOT see an action > >>> such > >>> > as > >>> > > > > deleting an entire module undertaken without discussion. > >>> > > > > Decision > >>> > > making > >>> > > > > for these types of change follow a a well-known and followed > >>> process. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Aside from code changes, there are changes to other areas of > the > >>> > > project > >>> > > > -- > >>> > > > > web sites, wiki, forums -- whose changes are not typically > noted > >>> > > > > in > >>> > BZ. > >>> > > > > Sometimes there are proposals and discussions, sometimes not. > >>> These > >>> > > are > >>> > > > > the kinds of changes that may need additional clarification > with > >>> > regard > >>> > > > to > >>> > > > > decision making. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > In summary, what kinds of change for non-source code need a > >>> > > > > [PROPOSAL]/discussion before change? > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > For source changes and non-source changes the idea is essentially > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > same. It is a judgement call more than a hard rule. That's why > >>> > > > we > >>> > > > should try to vote in committers who have demonstrated good > >>> > > > judgement > >>> > > > as well as technical skills. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > We operate in Commit-Then-Review mode most of the time, except > >>> > > > when > >>> > > > close to a Release Candidate. We try to avoid unnecessary > >>> discussion. > >>> > > > A timid committer who needs to review every minor change with is > >>> > > > an > >>> > > > annoyance to most of the 453 subscribers of the dev list. So we > >>> > > > want > >>> > > > to encourage JFDI where appropriate. But it is still a judgement > >>> > > > call. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > But in general, I think (my personal view) a committer should put > >>> > > > out > >>> > > > a proposal in situations such as: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 1) They are unsure of the technical merits of what they want to > >>> > > > do. > >>> > > > They want an extra pair of eyes to review the proposal point out > >>> > > > weaknesses, alternatives, etc. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 2) It is a job for more than one person or requires coordination > >>> > > > across several subgroups within the project. By putting out a > >>> > > > formal > >>> > > > proposal you can find additional volunteers and move forward in a > >>> > > > coordinated way. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 3) A change to one of our websites that impacts terms and > >>> conditions, > >>> > > > license, copyright, branding, etc. So not a technical change, > but > >>> > > > a > >>> > > > substantive change to content in these areas. These require PMC > >>> > > > review. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 4) A technical change that breaks backwards compatibility of the > >>> > product. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 5) Changes that break things. Sometimes this is unavoidable. > But > >>> > > > it > >>> > > > should be proposed and coordinated like #2 above. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 6) Changes that cannot easily be reversed. Code changes and most > >>> > > > website changes are in SVN and can be reverted. But some > changes, > >>> > > > like administrative bulk actions in BZ, cannot be easily undone. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 7) Public statements in behalf of the project, e.g., some blog > >>> > > > posts > >>> > > > and announcements, press releases, etc. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Those are examples, but the list is by no means complete. And > for > >>> > > > almost any of these there may be cases where CTR or even JFDI is > >>> > > > appropriate. I'd take them more as "things to think about" when > >>> > > > developing good judgement. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Regards, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -Rob > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > These are great guidelines! We should definitely integrate them > into > >>> the > >>> > > Decision Making page somehow. Number 7 might need more > elaboration. > >>> > > > >>> > > "Developing good judgement", like so many things in life, is > learned > >>> > > by > >>> > > trial and error. It would be great if we could at least better > >>> > > define > >>> > what > >>> > > we think "good judgement" is. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > > MzK > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is > >>> obliged > >>> > > > > to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." > >>> > > > > -- "Following the Equator", Mark > >>> > > > > Twain > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > -- > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > MzK > >>> > > > >>> > > "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is > >>> > > obliged > >>> > > to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." > >>> > > -- "Following the Equator", Mark Twain > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Alexandro Colorado > >>> > Apache OpenOffice Contributor > >>> > http://www.openoffice.org > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> MzK > >>> > >>> "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged > >>> to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." > >>> -- "Following the Equator", Mark Twain > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Alexandro Colorado > >> Apache OpenOffice Contributor > >> http://www.openoffice.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > > > -- > Alexandro Colorado > Apache OpenOffice Contributor > http://www.openoffice.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." -- "Following the Equator", Mark Twain
