Re: Process Model [was: ACTION-78: Suggestion text for 1.5.4]

Moving process discussion to www-archive

Sam Ruby wrote:
> You don't have to back up your opinion if you "can live with" something.

No, people should need to give justifications whether they are for or 
against a proposal.  If people don't provide any justification for why 
some proposal is good, then there's less information available to base a 
decision on.  The process must not degrade to a simple voting process, 
which is how I perceive the can/can't live with model.  It doesn't 
matter how many people can or can't live with anything.  It's the 
quality of the arguments that matter, not the quantity of those arguing 
one way or another.

e.g. Consider this scenario:
* Dozens of people are saying they can live with proposal A, but not B.
* 1 or 2 people are saying they strongly prefer proposal B, but they 
"can live with" proposal A.
* The many people in favour of A are using relatively weak arguments.
* The few in favour of B are using relatively strong arguments.

Ideally, the result should favour the few over the many: proposal B 
should be chosen over A.

However, as I understand your consensus driven can/can't live with 
model, proposal A would be chosen over B, despite it being suboptimal. 
The other model may not be considered consensus, and I suspect you think 
that's a problem, but it is a technically superior solution and that is 
why I think your model is flawed.

I know from experience how consensus driven can/can't-live-with 
approaches can result in suboptimal outcomes.  Just look at the 
Selectors API method naming issue.  Despite the research and effort I 
put into finding the most appropriate name based on evidence and logical 
argumentation, the WG went to a vote and forced me to choose a 
suboptimal name that no-one was particularly thrilled about but which 
everyone "can live with".

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 12:17:09 UTC