Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

Sam Ruby 2009-02-02 02.20:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Lachlan Hunt 2009-02-01 03.30:
>>> -public-html
>>> +www-archive

>>>> I see a "strawman".
>>>
>>> Sorry, that's not a strawman either.  Maciej was just pointing that 
>>> the he largely agreed with what Sam wrote, except for one small part.
>>
>> You (and Majiej) make it sound as if there is any difference between 
>> saying
>>
>>     "I disagree in point x."
>> and
>>     "I agree, except in point x."
> 
> My guidance was inconsistent.  "give each other the benefit of the 
> doubt" vs. "call them out when you see them".  I'd suggest we would all 
> benefit from giving the former a bit more weight than the latter.

I subscribe to this.

> One thing that may also not be clear here: "I think it is helpful to the 
> group to see people coming to agreement" is a making a subtle point that 
> Maciej sees "coming to an agreement" a subclass worth distinguishing 
> from "if you agree".
> 
> And, you know what?  I tend to agree.

It might be that I not fully have grasped the fullness of things 
you two have disagreed about, and so I was not able to appreciate 
enough that you two come together on all other points. I of course 
appreciate that you are coming together.

However, I have not, unlike Maciej, expressed disagreement in the 
particular point that he did express it on. And unlike Lachlan I 
do not consider this point a minor one either. On the contrary, if 
there is one thing I think particular important, then it is that 
there are quite fixed and orderly rules for how to raise issues. 
And I therefore was very happy to see you suggest such formalias. 
I would consider the vagueness that Maciej suggested instead as 
only more of the same situation as we have today. (Besides, if I 
remember, you allowed for some judgement even in your rule - it 
was not just "count 3 person and go".)

This has been a problem in the past. There were many issues that 
were raised, but thenafter closed. The main problem in this was 
not the fact that they were closed (which were discouraging enough 
though) but the fact that there were no fixed rules for how to go 
forward with what what cared for. It is much more easy to accept 
that one looses an issue if one know the rules, and can say that 
one tried to follow them and yet still lost.

Many things have been tried: the Wiki, the issue tracker - and 
other things. I am not the one that have tried the hardest, I do 
not fully grasp all the rules and "institutions" for our group - 
so I am not the one to explain it best. But I have been with 
others who tried to raise issues, and have seen their wikipages 
been deleted, their issues in the tracker not being accepted and 
so on. Hence rules to calculate with is needed. (I only speak for 
myself, however, I do not guarantee if others think the rules you 
proposed are good enough.)

Hence I felt it important to say that Maciej was stating 
disagreement. He only gave the reason "much work" for not having 
that rule, so his opposition might not be too strong. Here is 
hoping that it is so.

Your letter was a much appreciated step in the right direction. I 
am glad to agree with Maciej in that.

leif halvard silli

Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 03:42:48 UTC