On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:20PM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > That's a good idea. However, decisions made on the chat _have_ to be > > > recorded in the email. > > > > Actually, I'd like to drill into that. > > > > It's not a matter of *recording* a decision taken in a chat, but > recording > > the *content* of the discussion, along with possible options to move > > forward. Discussions can start spontaneously in a chat, regardless of > who's > > actually present. It would be unfair for decisions to be taken in absence > > of others who simply weren't around at the time. > > I am not arguing with this. And I am not saying that a decisions from a > chat > should be followed by anyone if the consensus weren't reached. The point I > am > making is that off-line discussions have to be recorded (either as email or > JIRA, depends on how the project operates) for future reference, if they > have > _any_ impact on the project. > You initially said that *decisions* have to be recorded in Apache media, and that's what I was objecting to. You then changed your terminology and I agree with this last stance of yours. In my view, decisions of significance should *not* be taken in chat, and then reported to the mailing lists. That's already too late. Decisions should be taken *in the mailing lists* with exposure to the entire community. In other words, a discussion in chat developing into a significant change should be moved over to the mailing list *before* a decision is taken. > > The decision itself should be taken in the mailing list – thus giving the > > entire community to voice out their opinion. If the changes are if the > > changes are substantial, structural or of significant impact, a VOTE is > > recommended by The Apache Way [1], and it's useful for the poster to > > indicate if lazy consensus applies. For smaller things, it suffices to > open > > a JIRA task and explain what was done and why. > > While your reference is certainly correct, the Apache Way isn't based on > voting. Apache Way is based on an explicit or an implicit consensus. > Voting-based system is a democracy; fortunately Apache isn't one. But let's > not go in this direction - it has been covered multiple times elsewhere. > I never said that the Apache Way was based on voting. How you arrived to that conclusion, I don't understand. All I said is that changes that are substantial, structural or of significant impact should be voted. That's what the The Apache Way advocates. In practice, those will be only a handful. > Cos > > > Sorry to be a PITA; but I'm sharing what has worked in other projects I'm > > involved in for the benefit and evolution of Ignite. > > > > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > Regards, > > > > *Raúl Kripalani* > > Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source > > Integration specialist > > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk >
