Hi guys, 'Tis the nature of democracy that you will vote for winning proposals more often then you will vote for losing proposals. But you will occasionally vote for a loser. Based on your three vetoes ;o) I've adjusted the document. Any objections to it's current form?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Changing+Processes Greets, Myrle *Myrle Krantz* Solutions Architect RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative mkra...@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > +1 - some things are so important it is worth piling on when there is > nothing to add... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:26 AM > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: How to get our processes bootstrapped > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Myrle Krantz <mkra...@mifos.org> wrote: > > > Hi Fins, > > > > > > We've been having discussions about what processes we want, but we > > haven't > > > agreed yet on how to institute processes or how to change them once > > > we've instituted them. I've put my thoughts on the matter into a > > > short > > document > > > here: > > > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcwi > > > ki.apache.org%2fconfluence%2fdisplay%2fFINERACT%2fChanging%2bProcess > > > es&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c47448b01623d455f867 > > > 008d3125b4258%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ooVkiIT0u > > > vdM81Gk6y%2bHPVruQhP3qiRjQEz4U0DmATA%3d > > > > > > I'd love to read your opinions on the matter too. > > > > In general, my strong advise to any young community is to avoid formal > > votes as a plague. At its core ASF runs on natural, not forced > > consensus. Any time there's a natural consensus -- you really don't > > need a vote. Any time there's a formal vote as a forcing function to a > > consensus -- you inevitably end up creating winners and losers. You > > really don't need that. At least not while the community is still > > young (and even when it grows up -- you don't > > *really* need it). > > > > I absolutely concur with the above. VERY MUCH. > > Roman is right: there is no need to define winners/losers. Consensus means > "those who agree" and "those who disagree, but will abide with the will of > the community." Don't separate the groups. Just understand they will exist, > and move onwards. A simple discussion is enough, and any real disagreement > will surface at that time. > > In the 15 years that Apache Subversion has existed, the community has > taken a formal vote only TWICE. One was for a code formatting choice where > clear consensus wasn't present, and the other... I don't even know. We've > gone a DECADE without a vote. ... yet Apache Subversion is one of the most > popular pieces of software on the planet and has had over a hundred > releases. > Clearly, a community doesn't require voting to be successful. > > Cheers, > -g >
