Hi, thanks Scott, for bringing this up!
Am Montag 16 Juni 2008 21:47:16 schrieb Scott Kitterman: > It has seemed to me for some time that making decisions about process and > policy changes at MOTU meetings based on votes of those present is not > serving us particularly well. The major problems with the current system, > as I see it are: > > 1. Not very many MOTU at the meeting, so a vote may or may not represent > the will of the larger body of MOTU (due to time zone spread it is not > practical to expect everyone to be able to make every meeting). > > 2. Due to this risk, MOTU present at a meeting are often unwilling to make > a decision on controversial issues. > > So we tend to get decisions on easy topics and not on hard ones. hm... imo it also depends on who hosts a meeting, if a harder decision is taken or not. However I don't think that's necessarily an argument in favor of the current procedure. > > I'd like to propose an alternative approach based on the IETF rough > consensus model. There are two major features I'd like to bring foward > from this model for MOTU: > > 1. Decisions need to be made by achieving rough consensus rather than by > 51% vote. I think working together to develop an answer to a problem that > most everyone can agree to is a more Ubuntu way than holding a vote that > can leave only slightly less than half the people unhappy. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus > > 2. Decisions must be ratified on the appropriate mailing list. > Discussions at a meeting are good and necessary, but the mailing list has > the final say. This is important so that all time zones can be represented > and missing a meeting doesn't leave people out. > > If a process or policy is needed, my proposal would work something like > this: > > 1. Someone makes an announcement to the MOTU ML describing the problem and > the proposed solution (much like this mail). > > 2. MOTU discuss on the ML. > > 3. The issue is on the agenda for the next meeting. It's discussed at the > meeting and someone other than the person asking for the change is > appointed to guage the consensus on the issue. > > 4. Meeting minutes get published that include the issue, a summary of the > discussion, and who is appointed to guage the consensus. > > 5. More discussion on the ML the selected person tries to guage the rough > consensus of the group. > > 6. That individual announces if rough consensus has been achieved. If so, > the change is approved, if not, more disucssion and new proposals. > > 7. Anyone who feels strongly that the consensus call was wrong, can appeal > to the MOTU Council who would have oversight over the process. > [..] sounds pretty good to me. Two comments: - For real uncontroversial issues, I don't really think the ping pong from mailing list to meeting back to mailing list is needed (take motu-sru membership discussion as an example -- even though that's not a very good example for us coming to a decision fast *g*). - I guess if there are really controversial issues, we'd not be able to come to a decision regarding those with this model? Maybe it should also be possible to call for a vote after a certain time when no outcome is reached until then? Anyway, excellent proposal! Cheers, Stefan.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
