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

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> 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.

In this scenario, nobody said that they "can't live with" proposal B. 
If someone did, they would have been asked to provide a strong argument 
as to why they did so.

> 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.

In the scenario above, as no-one would be able to provide a strong 
argument against either option, both A and B would be made available as 
options to the editor.

> 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".

Who is suggesting a vote?

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  I hate with a passion hypothetical discussions such as these.  The 
discussion that has occurred recently on issue 54 doctype-legacy-compat 
is not an example of a vote.  No noses were counted.  Only two people 
followed instructions.  Those two people provided strong cases.  Those 
strong arguments made by few made a big difference.

Tell me what you don't like about doctype-legacy-compat, and I will see 
what I can do to fix real instances of real problems.

If your position is that while this may have worked on 
doctype-legacy-compat, it is unlikely to do so on bigger problems, let's 
revisit that discussion when we have real instances of real problems.

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 13:20:40 UTC