I find email (properly tagged) more comfortable than github or wiki, but I can live with current status if folks prefer. So you can bucket me in "keep as is".
LZ On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Greg Sutcliffe <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been meaning to reply to this for about a week, sorry for the delay. This > is a topic I've been thinking about for a *long* time, so apologies for the > long thread :P > > I think there's two issues here. One is *how* to have the discussion, and the > other is how to *end* the discussion. From the comments so far, it seems we're > still somewhat split on point 1, but we're all agreed we need to find a > solution to point 2. As such, I'm only going to discuss point 2, as that's > where we currently struggle. > > For ways to end a discussion, I think there are several options. I've stayed > away from this area for a while, because it can be fairly explosive, but it's > clear we do need a way to conclude a discussion. > > One choice is to have a group of people responsible for deciding on these > things (a "technical council" or whatever title you wish to use). There's no > doubt that this works, but I dislike this option but it's exclusive, requires > a great deal of overhead (particularly documenting how the group works, and > how to become a part of it, and so forth). As a data point, Libreoffice do > this, with a similar order-of-magnitude of regular contributors. > > Another is a simple vote, but then you have to balance the "when" and "how". > Preserving the "quieter voices" (that is, people whose expertise is valuable, > but who don;t want to wade into a big discussion) in our community is > important, and votes are good for this, but close-to-50% votes can be very > divisive. PHP use this method, with the extra clause that the author of the > RFC gets to call the vote (after a minimum wait of 1 week from opening), and > they find it works for them. > > We could also turn to 3rd party systems to help us with discussions - as an > example, I believe the Diaspora development community use Loomio for their > decision making, but I have no data on how well it's working for them. I#m not > for this option - we already use enough tools - but others may like the idea. > > At this time, my gut feeling is: > > a) The group is split on the RFC repo, so let's not call it dead yet > b) The RFC repo works well(ish) as a place to discuss design > c) It needs process improvements to reflect how it's *actually* being used > d) We could add the vote system from PHP for closing discussions > e) (tangent) We could also use said vote system for foreman-dev discussions > > As further info, here's the recording from my discussion at FOSDEM on this > topic (where the above comments about Libreoffice and PHP come from, but > there's a lot of interesting stuff in there): > > http://mirror.onet.pl/pub/mirrors/video.fosdem.org/2017/UD2.119/ > community_closing_loops.mp4 > > So, to the point - how would people feel about trialing this? We'd need to > decide (a) if we want to test it, (b) how to call for & record votes, and (c) > when to end the trial and decide on whether to keep it. If you're against this > idea, please do suggest how else we might collectively improve our ways to > finish discussions :) > > Cheers > Greg > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Later, Lukas @lzap Zapletal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
