[csw-maintainers] introducing csw-upload-pkg

[Philip Brown]

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
>....
> Rather, I'm talking about things like changes to catalog format
> (SITEFEATURES) that can be made on a whim[3] by one person while
> others supported by multiple people (DATESTAMP) are dragged out
> endlessly[4].

Cutting the rest of my reply down to a summary here, because this I
think is the crux of basically all the unhappiness about process of
late.

There are only 2 ways to resolve differences in this, and many areas:
1. discussion, until agreement is reached
2. a vote among the appropriate group with responsibility.
  That would be either the entire membership, or a release (manager/group).

You complain about BOTH these things. You complain that discussion
goes on too long.
But you also complain that not everything should be forced to a vote.

I'll point the failings in both of these complaints together, because
they are related:
When people complain that "discussion has gone on too long", but they
also dont want to vote on it, that is usually a sign that they have
run out of anything to support their position. This means that *they*
are clinging to a personal preference, without supporting fact. A
reasonable person would concede the point. But they want their way, so
they complain 'this is not going anywhere', by which they mean, "I
cant see any route to GET MY WAY!!!" and so they stop participating in
the discussion.

When was the last time I blocked a vote on an issue?
Compared to the last time other people blocked one?

I'm not the one insisting on getting my way here. I am always open to
the voting process. I've shown myself to consistently be more open to
"democratic process" than most of the vocally unhappy people

Anyone who claims they want things to be "more open and equal to all
maintainers", but yet stands in the way of all maintainers voting on
issues, is a hypocrite.



> The problem is that we shouldn't need to force this every time.  In a
> healthy situation, people would see when they're the only one against
> a particular change.  That's not the case in the majority of issues
> raised.

There is a big difference between "the only person with a particular
opinion, in the handful who are bothering to read the issue", and "the
only *maintainer* who cares about the issue."
The first situation, does not prove the second one. Only a vote does.

Going by what you suggest, basically means that a vocal minority of 2
or 3 people can undemocratically control the flow of most everything
in opencsw, because they are the ones that bother to read and reply
regularly on the various mailing lists.

Now, dont get me wrong: "those who pay attention, get to run things",
is one valid way to run an organization.

But it is **not** "democratic".

Either opencsw is "a democratic organization, where issues are decided
by all voting members",
or it is an organization where the only thing that matters is which
group of people is most active on the mailing lists.

PICK ONE OR THE OTHER, MAKE IT WRITTEN POLICY, AND STICK TO IT.