[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] Policy-team, policy docs, licenses

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> 2011/2/11 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>:
>> 2011/2/10 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> It's not "clearly" anything of the sort. I'm only  proposing that we
>>> keep things as simple as possible.
>>
>> Simple, in what sense?
>
> The policy.
>
> no one said policy *making* was simple (in any context, whether in
> opencsw, or elsewhere).
> The goal should be a simple, easy to read and understand _policy_, not
> ease of creating new policies.
> In the same way that our overall goals should be to provide a simple
> easy to use experience for the _user_, not "to make maintainers lives
> easier".
> Quality of end product should come first. ease of production, second.

Nobody said the opposite.

>> 2011-02-06 12:27 Maciej sends the first revision of the patch sent out [1]
>> 2011-02-06 12:54 Peter F sends a review with a suggestion [2]
>> 2011-02-06 13:23 Maciej sends the second revision [3]
>> 2011-02-09 00:12 Maciej asks for feedback [4]
>> 2011-02-09 05:48 Phil sends a disapproving review [5]
>> 2011-02-09 09:25 Peter F confirms his approval [6]
>>
>> It took Peter F and me one hour to prepare a reviewed and revised
>> change.  5 days later, after exchanging many e-mails, the patch has
>> neither Phil's approval nor a concrete, constructive review (see [2]
>> for an example of such review) from him.
>
> I thought what I said was fairly concrete, in that I dont think we
> need an abstract, or a license.

We think that it's necessary.

> And if we DO set down a license, we need to have a vote on it (becuase
> it will affect ALL of our documentation, for all time. Having you just
> decide on one, and having a quickie little "verbal" agreement on the
> mailing list, seems grossly inappropriate for such a scope)
> And before that, to have a fair vote, first evaluate all the choices
> and provide a proper comparison to voters...
> Now that, is the opposite of simple.

You are endowed to you oppinion which we respect.

> Nor is this me being "obstructionist" or other garbage: this is me
> pointing out **the proper way to do things**, in any real life
> business organization, particularly a supposedly democratically
> founded one.

I agree with you that obstructionism is garbage.

A business is not a democracy. We are not a business but a community. A
community should be a democracy.

It's quite arrogant to think that there is only one "[...] proper way to
do things".

> Ironically, it's "The Secretary"  who should be pushing for proper
> protocol and procedure in this kind of proceeding.

The introduction of a policy was presented to the community. We have
discussed it. At the amazing speed of 204 characters per day or 43
characters per message in the thread. Indeed, this is an impasse. A vote
can be triggered with the following, very simple content of 2 mutually
exclusive questions:

1. do you agree with the proposal of policy document introduction (here
   Maciej give a reference to the wording)

2. No abstract or license are necessary for the policy document (or a
   different wording of Phil's opinion or the reference toward his
   vision of the introduction)

-- 
Peter