On June 11, 2015 10:37:22 AM GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <[email protected]> wrote: >Actually this silence is my main concern here :) > >We're going the change the process. And everyone in the community has >to >move to the new process at the same time. I have nothing against >consensus >concept, but IMHO there should be some formal indicator. Such a vote >(if we >do not apply majority rules to it) can be one of them - when the vote >is >closed, decision is made. Are there other options?
It might sound like i'm somewhat reverting from what I said earlier and it is ;) After quite a bit of consideration I'm going to fully back Brane's stance on that. If needed results were achieved through the 'silent consensus' why doing an extra effort and run a vote? The formal indicator would be a change in the project/design documentation, or wiki, or code. This is true Dao of open source: you do less to actually achieve more! Just go with flow - don't build new procedural barriers if you can do without them. Cos >-Val >On Jun 11, 2015 12:03 AM, "Branko Čibej" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 11.06.2015 01:47, Valentin Kulichenko wrote: >> > Hmm. I'm not sure I understand. As far as I understand, any vote >here >> > is unanimous, but not majority. I.e., if anyone in community has >> > objections, vote is declined (already not a democracy, right? :) ). >If >> so, >> > I really don't see any difference between "consensus is recorded by >no >> > objections >> > being raised" and "consensus is recorded by the vote being passed". >> >> See again re "silent consensus". It's an informal process. Voting is >> formal and by definition implies that the majority rules. Consensus >> implies something else entirely. A -1 vote can be overridden by >others. >> An objection during silent consensus process cannot. >> >> -- Brane >> >>
