Hi folks,
On 26.05.22 03:29, Anastasia Klimchuk wrote:
So, straight to the point: it looks like we have a decision making process emerging! (below). What do people think about it?
one important point is the scope I guess, i.e. when to apply this process. There are certainly things that we could call a "big decision". The upcoming flashrom-reviewers group for Gerrit comes to mind, for instance. However, for many smaller decisions the elaborate process might bring too much overhead.
#1 Discuss things on the mailing list first. It could be ongoing for months - so that everyone who is interested has time to read and respond. However, it doesn’t have to be for months. #2 When/if the discussion seems to be settled and people are in agreement, the item can be added to the agenda of the meeting.
What would it be specifically that "people are in agreement" about? to move the discussion to the next level? or about the actual decision? In the latter case, why would we have to continue discussing?
I'd say if no consent is found on the mailing list, we should proceed in the meeting?
#3 At the meeting the item can be discussed again, and a decision can be made (or not made, if people disagree).
Assuming somebody already disagreed on the mailing list, we might just repeat what happened there if we try to make an unanimous decision. So should it be a majority vote? e.g. 2 out of 3 agree? If so, I think we should try to determine who exactly gets to vote in the meeting. For instance,
* the people who took part in the mailing list discussion and are also present in the meeting?
* everybody in the meeting who read the mailing list discussion?
* everybody in the meeting no matter if they read all the arguments?
#4 After the meeting we send an email with meeting notes and “Decisions summary” on the top of the email. #5 Since stuff never gets done immediately, there always be some time to react on #4
Nico