[CHAOSS] How decisions are made (was: Opening discussion on using Discourse Forum for CHAOSS)

Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona jgb at bitergia.com
Tue Nov 27 09:50:41 UTC 2018


Pull request with a draft on how we make decisions:

https://github.com/chaoss/governance/pull/69/files

Any feedback is welcome (maybe better in the pull request itself).

Saludos,

	Jesus.

On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 23:10 +0100, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona wrote:
> Yes. The basic assumption is that everyone is in the mailing list
> (maybe with some delay), so is consensus is perceived in the call,
> that
> would be a proposal to be shared in the mailing list, where if
> somebody
> disagrees, can express it, and therefore we all learn that consensus
> was not complete.
> 
> So, topics agreed in calls would be sent to the mailing list as
> proposals on which people participating in the call think there is
> already consensus, but knowing they may be wrong.
> 
> Do you all agree? If so, I can write some text for our repository.
> 
> Saludos,
> 
> 	Jesus.
> 
> On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 15:30 -0600, Georg Link wrote:
> > Yes, the proposal is to document what the decision making process
> > is
> > (who gets to decide, where is the decision made, where are
> > decisions
> > documented/archived).
> > 
> > Yes, the mailing list (until we switch to Discourse ;p ) is the
> > final
> > place for 'closure' = decision finalizing and archiving.
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:03 PM Matt Germonprez <
> > germonprez at gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > > Hi Georg and all, 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for discussing this at today's weekly hangout... sorry I
> > > couldn't make it. From my reading of your summary, it sounds like
> > > things largely stay as they are in the CHAOSS project but relying
> > > on the mail list for 'closure' more so than the weekly meetings.
> > > Is
> > > this right? 
> > > 
> > > I do think that there are good points that has been raised in all
> > > of this -- to not overly complicate a process such that it gets
> > > in
> > > the way of doing good CHAOSS work and maintaining transparency in
> > > any decision-making process. 
> > > 
> > > Matt
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:39 PM Emma Irwin <eirwin at mozilla.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I am not sure I understand your point.  You feel like CHAOSS is
> > > > like Debian?
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:37 AM dmg <dmg at uvic.ca> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:31 AM Emma Irwin <
> > > > > eirwin at mozilla.com
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Suggest never saying 'that's how most open source projects'
> > > > > do things, when referencing governance discussions.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I suggest you go count the number of packages in debian,
> > > > > count
> > > > > the
> > > > > number of projects that they belong to and then find how many
> > > > > of them
> > > > > have a decision process. I suggest you do random sampling,
> > > > > since the
> > > > > number is large (reach a certain level of confidence, say 90%
> > > > > +/-10%
> > > > > error).
> > > > > 
> > > > > you will find most open source (at least in debian) is built
> > > > > by
> > > > > 1 or 2
> > > > > developers who make all the decisions without a process in
> > > > > place.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:16 AM dmg <dmg at turingmachine.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I don't think this has always being the case, but I
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > say
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > usually people argue in favor or against, and propose
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > decisions, in the mailing list, and then during the
> > > > > > > > calls,
> > > > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > areas are explored until a decision is perceived to
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > consensus. But
> > > > > > > > other people who has participated in these processes
> > > > > > > > may
> > > > > say too
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > this matches their experience.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > hi Jesus
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > with all due respect, I think most decisions are not
> > > > > > > reached. Simply, the people who are in charge of them
> > > > > > > enact them according to the input of others.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In other words: the doers control what gets done and how,
> > > > > with the
> > > > > > > possibility that they take into
> > > > > > > consideration the input of others.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > there have been some decisions (few) that require a vote
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > board. But in general,
> > > > > > > we have silent consent.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think this is perfectly fine. It is just the way that
> > > > > > > most
> > > > > open
> > > > > > > source projects work.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > perhaps at some point, the board might get the ability to
> > > > > veto
> > > > > > > actions by CHAOSS members via a majority
> > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Up to now, my feeling is this worked well. But maybe it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > scaling
> > > > > > > > up as we have more people involved in general, people
> > > > > active in
> > > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > > groups, the set of people attending all calls, and
> > > > > participating
> > > > > > > > in all
> > > > > > > > mailing lists, is getting shorter and shorter (as a
> > > > > fraction of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > total people involved in CHAOSS as a whole).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think we all have our opinions on what needs/should be
> > > > > done. But
> > > > > > > unless we are willing to do it,
> > > > > > > we should not get on the way of those doing it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > There are situations where actions of CHAOSS members on
> > > > > behalf of
> > > > > > > CHAOSS might veer outside the goals of the project (which
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > subjective---I grant, personally
> > > > > > > I have see at least one instance of this happening). This
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > require a process to bring a vote to the validity of
> > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > actions.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > * First, comment on your feelings about the decision
> > > > > making
> > > > > > > > process, in
> > > > > > > > this specific case and in general. If many of us think
> > > > > that we
> > > > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > > decide more formally on a process, we can work on
> > > > > > > > having
> > > > > one. If
> > > > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > we can stick to the current way.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > * Second, if somebody feels that in this specific case
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > consensus, we can either talk it more broadly, or
> > > > > > > > raising
> > > > > it to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > CHAOSS Board. We have a meeting in a week, so this
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > timely.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > see above. I have addressed both points.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >       Jesus.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Daniel M. German                  "Language alone
> > > > > > > protects
> > > > > us from
> > > > > > > the scariness
> > > > > > >                                    of things with no
> > > > > > > names.
> > > > > > >    Toni Morrison ->                Language alone is
> > > > > meditation. "
> > > > > > > http://turingmachine.org/
> > > > > > > http://silvernegative.com/
> > > > > > > dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca
> > > > > > > replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Emma Irwin (she/her)
> > > > > > Community Development
> > > > > > Open Innovation Team
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > --dmg
> > > > > 
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Daniel M. German
> > > > > http://turingmachine.org
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Emma Irwin (she/her)
> > > > Community Development
> > > > Open Innovation Team
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > CHAOSS mailing list
> > > > CHAOSS at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chaoss
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Mutual of Omaha Associate Professor
> > > Information Systems 
> > > College of Information Science & Technology 
> > > University of Nebraska Omaha
> > > he / him / his
> > > https://goo.gl/E87KdK
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > CHAOSS mailing list
> > CHAOSS at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chaoss
-- 
Bitergia: http://bitergia.com
/me at Twitter: https://twitter.com/jgbarah




More information about the CHAOSS mailing list