<div dir="ltr">I am not sure I understand your point. You feel like CHAOSS is like Debian?<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:37 AM dmg <<a href="mailto:dmg@uvic.ca">dmg@uvic.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:31 AM Emma Irwin <<a href="mailto:eirwin@mozilla.com" target="_blank">eirwin@mozilla.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Documentation of who makes decisions, their role(s), and the process they follow is half the battle to gaining trust, and increased participation in decision-making. Most of the time people are not interested in challenging, but they do want to be consulted. This is a great talk from Rust on that topic.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Suggest never saying 'that's how most open source projects' do things, when referencing governance discussions.<br>
<br>
I suggest you go count the number of packages in debian, count the<br>
number of projects that they belong to and then find how many of them<br>
have a decision process. I suggest you do random sampling, since the<br>
number is large (reach a certain level of confidence, say 90% +/-10%<br>
error).<br>
<br>
you will find most open source (at least in debian) is built by 1 or 2<br>
developers who make all the decisions without a process in place.<br>
<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:16 AM dmg <<a href="mailto:dmg@turingmachine.org" target="_blank">dmg@turingmachine.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> > I don't think this has always being the case, but I would say<br>
>> > that<br>
>> > usually people argue in favor or against, and propose different<br>
>> > decisions, in the mailing list, and then during the calls,<br>
>> > consensus<br>
>> > areas are explored until a decision is perceived to have<br>
>> > consensus. But<br>
>> > other people who has participated in these processes may say too<br>
>> > if<br>
>> > this matches their experience.<br>
>><br>
>> hi Jesus<br>
>><br>
>> with all due respect, I think most decisions are not<br>
>> reached. Simply, the people who are in charge of them<br>
>> enact them according to the input of others.<br>
>><br>
>> In other words: the doers control what gets done and how, with the<br>
>> possibility that they take into<br>
>> consideration the input of others.<br>
>><br>
>> there have been some decisions (few) that require a vote of the<br>
>> board. But in general,<br>
>> we have silent consent.<br>
>><br>
>> I think this is perfectly fine. It is just the way that most open<br>
>> source projects work.<br>
>><br>
>> perhaps at some point, the board might get the ability to veto<br>
>> actions by CHAOSS members via a majority<br>
>> vote.<br>
>><br>
>> > Up to now, my feeling is this worked well. But maybe it is not<br>
>> > scaling<br>
>> > up as we have more people involved in general, people active in<br>
>> > working<br>
>> > groups, the set of people attending all calls, and participating<br>
>> > in all<br>
>> > mailing lists, is getting shorter and shorter (as a fraction of<br>
>> > the<br>
>> > total people involved in CHAOSS as a whole).<br>
>><br>
>> I think we all have our opinions on what needs/should be done. But<br>
>> unless we are willing to do it,<br>
>> we should not get on the way of those doing it.<br>
>><br>
>> There are situations where actions of CHAOSS members on behalf of<br>
>> CHAOSS might veer outside the goals of the project (which is<br>
>> subjective---I grant, personally<br>
>> I have see at least one instance of this happening). This might<br>
>> require a process to bring a vote to the validity of those<br>
>> actions.<br>
>><br>
>> ><br>
>> > * First, comment on your feelings about the decision making<br>
>> > process, in<br>
>> > this specific case and in general. If many of us think that we<br>
>> > need to<br>
>> > decide more formally on a process, we can work on having one. If<br>
>> > not,<br>
>> > we can stick to the current way.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > * Second, if somebody feels that in this specific case we don't<br>
>> > have a<br>
>> > consensus, we can either talk it more broadly, or raising it to<br>
>> > the<br>
>> > CHAOSS Board. We have a meeting in a week, so this would be<br>
>> > timely.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > What do you think?<br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> see above. I have addressed both points.<br>
>><br>
>> > Jesus.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > --<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Daniel M. German "Language alone protects us from<br>
>> the scariness<br>
>> of things with no names.<br>
>> Toni Morrison -> Language alone is meditation. "<br>
>> <a href="http://turingmachine.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://turingmachine.org/</a><br>
>> <a href="http://silvernegative.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://silvernegative.com/</a><br>
>> dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca<br>
>> replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Emma Irwin (she/her)<br>
> Community Development<br>
> Open Innovation Team<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
--dmg<br>
<br>
---<br>
Daniel M. German<br>
<a href="http://turingmachine.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://turingmachine.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><span><font color="#888888">Emma Irwin (she/her)<br></font></span></div><div><span><font color="#888888">Community Development<br></font></span></div><div><span><font color="#888888">Open Innovation Team<br>
</font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>