On 07.06.2015 16:15, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > How do we reach consensus without a vote? I thought vote will encourage > everyone to participate and provide opinion. > > I can cancel the vote, but so far I have heard no objections to the newly > proposed structure. Does it mean we have a consensus?
If you need a vote, you don't have consensus. If you have consensus, then nobody explicitly disagrees. The most frequent consensus-building process at the ASF is the "silent consensus": Someone makes a proposal, and if no-one objects within a reasonable time (e.g., at least 72 hours but can be longer especially during are week-ends or holidays). There are only two cases where voting is mandatory: vetting a release and adding a PMC member. In both cases the formal vote is essentially a legal requirement. Even in these cases, if you suspect that a vote is likely to fail, it's better to not vote at all and discuss alternatives instead. You'll often see the motto "community over code" around here; but it should also be "community over process" because using procedural tools to override lack of consensus is a really bad thing. To get back on topic: I suggest you (or someone) writes up a document, as a wiki page for example, that concisely describes the CM process we've been discussing in this thread; then just write a mail to dev@ and ask for comments. Eventually you'll get a more or less final version of the doc without having to vote at all. Unlike voting, with gives you all-or-nothing result, in this way you'll get a document that keeps evolving as your needs change. If you voted instead, you'd also have to vote for any change to the doc ... which is weird, right? :) -- Brane On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 07.06.2015 15:50, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: >>> Let's have a vote on the GIT structure proposed by the community (mainly >>> Brane and Cos). >> Stop right there. Voting makes no sense at all. Discuss and reach >> consensus instead. >> >> Voting should never be used as a decision-making tool; it's an >> indication that the community can't agree on anything and resorts to >> majority rule instead of consensus rule. >> >> -- Brane >> >>
