[csw-maintainers] proposal

[Ben Walton]

Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Mon Jun 20 00:59:26 -0400 2011:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> > ...
> > Say for a minute that there were no names undersigning the proposal.
> > There would still be multiple people that worked on it and put it
> > forward.  Do you feel that you have some intrinsic right to be able to
> > alter this proposal?
> 
> The trouble here is that we still have no proper (and by that I mean,
> documented and officially approved)  procedures for even creating a
> proposal, let alone amendment to the proposal, and then approving or
> rejecting them.

And if we try to accomplish these things with you, we'll get nowhere.
We've tried this with the policy project.  Both Maciej and Peter gave
up working with you.

I'm more and more convinced that for such a small group of people, the
level of overhead involved with processes such as those in use at
Debian are not worthwhile.  Not that they're bad.  They're just very
heavy weight.

If you'd like to see changes to the proposal, put them forward.  If
they build on it in a constructive manner such that the those signed
on find them appealing, they'll be incorporated.  Otherwise they
won't.

>   1. an initial proposal is made

Done.

>   2. some formal discussion period (**ON THE LIST**) happens
>       (off-list discussion may or may not happen, but the one that
> actually counts, is the bits done on the developer list
>        that is fully archivable by all members, fully accessible by
> all members, and fully open to all members)

Please discuss.  That's why the proposal was announced.

>  3. If an amendment is proposed, then that is discussed. If
> consensus(s) is reached, then the proposal is amended.
>      (it is also possible that after discussion, the proposal is withdrawn)
>      If no consensus is reached, then when voting time comes, both
> versions of the proposal are put up for vote.

Right.  Put it out there and see if you get consensus.  As I said, if
you put something constructive together there is no reason it wouldn't
be accepted.  If you try to strip out the heart of the proposal,
nobody is going to bite on it, thus no consensus, thus no change.

Unless you've got a reasonable number of people (eg: more than one)
wanting a certain amendment, I don't see why it would hit the ballot.

> I am more concerned about "oh hey we reached X number of people with
> their names on the document, so there's no reason to have discussion
> on the mailing list, or a vote; the proposal to change our practices
> is 'deemed as passed'. Done. From now on we do this [this way].

Nobody is quelling discussion.  You're just not discussing it.  You'll
note that the names on the list are the ones that do the bulk of the
on-list discussing anyway and we've already talked about this.  There
will be a vote as well, although I stand by the statement that if we
had 50% + 1 people sign the proposal a vote is a waste of time.

Thanks
-Ben
--
Ben Walton
Systems Programmer - CHASS
University of Toronto
C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302