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

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> Actually, I said "...can live with proposal A, *but not B*", meaning 
> "cannot live with" B.  I now see how what I said is slightly ambiguous, 
> sorry for the confusion.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> How does the clarification I gave above change that outcome?

Even with the above clarification, I still see the outcome as being that 
no-one was able to provide a strong argument against either option?  Or 
did I misread?

>>> 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?
> 
> I'm finding it difficult to perceive "can live with" and "can't live 
> with" as anything other than a form of vote.  The statement itself isn't 
>  an argument, and frankly whether someone can or can't live with 
> something doesn't matter in the least.  What matters is just the quality 
> of the argument put forth and it should make no difference whether 
> someone explicitly says they can or can't live with something.  It's 
> also pointless to get people to say it explicitly since it's much easier 
> to evaluate someone's position based on the arguments they put forth, 
> than relying on an explicit binary statement.

If we were to allow people to equate "can't live with" with "I'd prefer 
something else", we do end up there.  So I propose that we don't do that.

>> 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.
> 
> I'm aware the so few people followed instructions, which thankfully made 
> the attempt at using the model a benign failure.  Presumably I was one 
> of those who didn't follow instructions because I explicitly avoided 
> stating whether or not I could live with a solution, and only provided 
> logical arguments and evidence for or against each.

It is worth observing that if you had not done so, we would have ended 
up at the same place.

> But despite your complaints about people not following instructions, 
> most people that contributed used a model that really works (i.e. 
> presenting evidence and logical arguments), and we ended up with a 
> better proposal than those on offer to begin with.

Two people each stated that they could not live with two options each, 
and provided solid arguments as to why, effectively taking out all four 
available options.  I could have tried to push back harder, but one of 
those two individuals provided a fifth option that nobody has knocked 
down yet.

>> 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.
> 
> My position is that, in reality, the can-live-with model wasn't really 
> used for the doctype-legacy-compat and can't be used as evidence of it 
> working.

I claim it was.  I can provide evidence.  You claim it wasn't.  You can 
provide evidence.  We can both look at that evidence and come to 
different conclusions.

But in the end it doesn't much matter.

So far, we both agree that the results are good.

That's what matters.

> My suggestion is that instead of presenting a list of options and asking 
> people to say yes or no, it's better to ask them to evaluate each 
> alternative.

Do you like dogs or cats better?  Please provide evidence and evaluate 
each alternative.

Better yet, how about we agree to keep the mountain lions and coyotes 
away from small children?

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 14:39:52 UTC