On Sep 18, 2013 3:10 PM, "Alexandro Colorado" <j...@oooes.org> wrote: > > On 9/18/13, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 wonder how you define 'info item' and what you expect to do with it. > If for example there is a typo and a page says AApache OpenOffice on > the title, and an email comes saying: > > "It seems like page x has a typo on the title saying AApache > OpenOffice, I create the bug #2111 with the patch" > > What exactly should be the next step, if any?
A notification about a bug with a patch is an "info item", possibly needing action, in my mind. In this case, since an e-mail was sent telling us of a patch, a committer could apply it after checking it out and making a determination that it was the right thing to do -- in this case, a spelling correction which, of course, is needed -- and not harmful. This "next step" is normal in our process of dealing with bug reports. > > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > 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 >
