[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] Policy-team

[Maciej Bliziński]

2011/2/7 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
> 2011/2/6 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>:
>> I have an idea about the process of codification of our policy.  The
>> general idea is that we do it together as a community.  One person
>> prepares a change, and sends it out so others can see it and comment
>> on it.  When the change is accepted, it can be committed to the
>> repository.
>>
>> To make the process work smoothly, the person who sent the change,
>> needs to know when is it okay to submit the patch.  On our mailing
>> lists, things usually work the way that whenever a proposal is
>> submitted, comments provided are primarily criticisms.  Proposals are
>> pass when critical voices fade away.
>
> and if they dont?  what triggers a vote?

I would guess that vote is the right thing to do when a discussion
reaches an impasse.  The trigger would be one of the sides (or both)
to call for it by sending an e-mail to the mailing list.

> Is there a mandatory
> discusion period length?

I would like not to define a mandatory length.  It depends on the
change, some will require a discussion, but not all.

> and what is the threshold for a a change in policy to pass? Given our
> small size, I dont think that "simple majority" is a good idea.

I certainly hope that in most cases, policy changes will happen by
consensus, not by vote.  If a community has to vote a lot, it's a sign
of community's problems.  (Although on the other hand, if a community
does have problems, it's better to diagnose them as quickly as
possible, so I'm not saying we shouldn't vote.)

You've been often stressing that even initially popular ideas might
turn out to be flawed.  I agree that popular support is not a
guarantee that one choice is better than the other.  That's why when a
discussion is held, all sides need to present their arguments well.
However, I don't see that as a basis to reject the democratic process
of policy making, and I don't see a better alternative.

> and should we have different voting threshholds for new policies, vs
> changing existing ones?

I'd like to distinguish between two separate activities:

- policy making
- policy codification

The two may be done at the same time, but aren't necessarily
identical.  Of course, these two activities are related, and it's
impossible to do one without the other.  I would like us to primarily
focus on codification, at least for the time being.  In codification,
the discussions would primarily regard wording, and potentially
document structure.

I would like us to take the existing, preferably uncontroversial
elements of our policy, and start giving them the shape of a document
that can be put online.

Regarding voting thresholds, I don't have an opinion on that.  I guess
that the higher the threshold, the easier it is for a minority to
block a change.  I don't know what the optimal values are.  I'd be
interested to hear about ways to establish such thresholds and their
effects.  I was personally thinking about a simple 50% threshold.

I'd also like to repeat I do hope we will be working by consensus.

>> Volunteers?  Thoughts?
>
> I would volunteer

Cool.  I also saw a response from Peter Felecan, so we have three
people already, excellent.  Anybody else?