Re: TC voting and governance process
* Russ Allbery (email@example.com) [140211 06:57]:
> Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > OTOH, if the ctte is still stuck in a procedural morass after the full
> > 3-4 weeks it takes to pass a GR, it could be a lifeline that lets it
> > decide on a better decision making procedure. Even if that ends up being
> > "we decide by consensus and we have none re systemd".
> So, well, the only thing that I do feel obligated to say about this is:
> I have had people subsequently point out to me that this post is not being
> entirely fair to Wikipedia, and I apologize for that part, but I stand by
> the general principles that I posted there. (And observe that the group
> size is not magic that leads to consensus *always* working. We failed at
> consensus in a group of eight.)
Just a side note, I already failed to consensus in a group of two.
(However, it was not nearly as important as this issue, so it was more
easy to resolve - we ended up with delegating the topic to the tech
ctte, where we didn't end up with consensus either but with a
Also, I don't think we need to go for consensus. Consensus is good,
but I think what we should looking hard for is that everyone could
consider the winning option as acceptable, i.e. voting that above FD.
It's ok if an option wins which is just a bit better than FD for all.
Also, I don't think that in cases we have relevant different opinions
we need to hide them - having options explicitly voted down might be
healty because we are not hiding different positions but some just
don't get majority.
> Sometimes it really is better to have a decision you don't agree with than
> no decision.
That is a very true remark.
One important (and useful) part of well working procedures is that
even people who don't agree to the outcome can agree that the project
has decided this outcome. And if you can agree to the second, this is
good for future collaboration.