I agree with Srinath, I'd prefer to see consensus building rather than vetoes.
From my perspective the harm is that it discourages people from
joining discussions and voicing an opinion when someone has effectively said 'this thread is dead unless I decide otherwise'. When so many things get -1'd it discourages discussion and encourages people to be more.. um... 'subtle' about changes they're making which isn't healthy. We can either have a welcoming project where new things are tried and discussed calmly when they are, or we can have a project where interesting changes are instantly vetoed because it's not something a given individual can see an immediate need for. The latter is likely, imo to drive away anyone who has good ideas and wants to move at any kind of pace. Bluntly, in an open source project I fully expect there to be decisions made I don't entirely like, but which are supported by others. That's happened to me in the past year and I know it's happened to others. When the number of vetoes outnumbers the -0's or 'I don't like this', it suggests that we've lost sight of that and that individuals are expecting everything to exactly match their mental model. I honestly believe that the majority of the contributors have reasonably well aligned goals and an understanding of the current design consensus. Lots of vetoes are therefore, to me, not an indication of real technical differences, but of communication and collaboration problems (which -1's don't seem to help.. a self perpetuating cycle.) As an aside, when doing stuff face to face e.g. at the hackathon, do vetoes get used in conversation? David On 16/06/07, Srinath Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am also feel, If we use -1 on *non vote* threads it has the effect of drying out the conversation. I personally use 0- to say, "I do not like sound of it". But on vote threads if one do not like it, they have to use -1 and say so where it does not Veto. I know there was a time we saw -1 less often, may be we were not have enough close conversations. Anyway I do not want to see -1 start flying on everything. my two cents Thanks Srinath On 6/16/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sanjiva, > > I really don't want to pick on any instance in particular. IMHO, you > get better bang for the buck (at least with me!) if you just state you > don't like something and we'll work together to make it better. I > guess it's a cultural issue as well (with me!). So if more people > would like to see more -1's. who am i to say something...let the -1's > fly! I personally can't understand why wielding the club is more > efficient when a fly swatter will do. You will not hear me crib about > -1's again if that's the consensus which i think it has now become. > IMHO, -1's just stop the discussion in its tracks and it's rampant use > is an unhealthy sign in my opinion. Guess, i have to get used to it. > > thanks, > dims > > On 6/16/07, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 .. I don't understand why -1 is a bad thing either. If someone doesn't > > like a code change and vetos it with a -1 and gives an explanation then > > there's nothing wrong with that. > > > > Dims can you explain what aspect of the -1 (and give examples) that is > > problematical? > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > Glen Daniels wrote: > > > Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > >> *PLEASE* stop abusing -1's. it's being used left, right, center and > > >> totally losing its meaning. > > > > > > -1 :) :) (you didn't really expect me to resist that one did you?) > > > > > > Seriously, though - isn't -1 still totally dependent on context? I.e. > > > it's a veto for code changes, it's a no vote for VOTEs, it's an "I'd > > > rather not" for release votes, it's a dessert topping.... > > > > > > It seems to me as long as everyone is respecting others, voting > > > appropriately, and following the actual rules for real process issues, > > > it's not *that* big a deal. Has this come up in other projects that > > > you've been involved with too, dims? > > > > > > --Glen > > > > > > P.S. Welcome back! > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > > Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/ > > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/ > > Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/ > > Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ > > Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- ============================ Srinath Perera: Indiana University, Bloomington http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~hperera/ http://www.bloglines.com/blog/hemapani --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- David Illsley - IBM Web Services Development --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
