Hello People,
The topic initially came up in the “Gatekeeping” thread. However it was suggested that it should be a separate thread, which makes sense so I am starting one.
So, straight to the point: it looks like we have a decision making process emerging! (below). What do people think about it?
#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. #3 At the meeting the item can be discussed again, and a decision can be made (or not made, if people disagree). #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
If someone has objections/concerns, it would be great if you can propose improvements or alternative solutions. Please don’t just say “this is all wrong!”
Many thanks for sharing your thoughts!
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
Thanks for your thoughts!
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.
Yes I fully agree! Some things are small and can be done quickly. My attempt to address that was saying "it doesn’t have to be for months". Let's see how it goes? I would say, if someone thinks that a topic is a big deal and needs to be discussed on the mailing list, they always can (and welcome to) start a thread.
#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?
What I had in mind was: people are in agreement about the idea. Like: yes this is a good idea let's do it. The actual decision (for me) is a moment of time when an idea becomes a goal. Which means: from that moment todos can to be described and people can take todos. Todos are steps that need to be done to implement the idea. I am thinking it is easier to capture this moment of time in the meeting.
I'd say if no consent is found on the mailing list, we should proceed in the meeting?
I don't mind, so yes? I would just say "proceed with caution", I would try to analyze what are the concerns that prevent from finding consent. Maybe the concerns can be addressed.
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?
This is the toughest! But I have some thoughts. When somebody disagrees my first thing is to try to understand why, what is the reason for a strong opposite opinion, and is there a way to address the concerns. I will always be asking to explain the concerns and point of view.
If nothing helps... Majority seems like a reasonable approach.
Also it happens sometimes that people say "I don't agree with this entirely, but I don't want to block it if everyone else agrees".
From the options you described, #2 seems to make most sense: "everybody in the meeting who read the mailing list discussion" If it comes to this, however, we need to try and get everybody who is actively interested to join that instance of the meeting?
-
Anastasia Klimchuk -
Nico Huber