develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: Voting/Decision making guidelines

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Chaim Frenkel
Date:
July 25, 2000 11:18
Subject:
Re: Voting/Decision making guidelines
Message ID:
m31z0i9iq5.fsf@csamnycln01.nyc.csam.com
All you've done is push the decision making off to the working
group. But those groups have to end up with a final report. Think of
having **** and *** on the same working group. Do you think anything
will come of it.

Some items are so closely split (I didn't mention |||) and so vehement
that coming to a final decision is difficult or impossible. Voting is
unlikely to come to a good conclusion. Unless the weight is
sufficiently on one side, all parties come away badly.

So if voting is difficult, we need to replace it with a final authority.
We have Larry, but quite a number of times, we requested a Rule #1 ruling
but it didn't seem to be issued.

Some mechanism, should be offered up as a starting point for the
community.  My personal preference would be Larry as final arbitrator,
but if he isn't available or isn't willing to constantly babysit the
community, then we need folks that can think somewhat like
Larry. What's in the best interest of Perl and its community (as
diverse as it is.)

I think the past and present pumpkings are a well selected lot. They
should have a next-to-final say in all decisions/appeals.

<chaim>

>>>>> "CN" == Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> writes:

CN> As I see it, voting could serve two purposes: an advisory role, or a
CN> decision-making role.  The latter seems unreasonable; this is why we have
CN> the pumpkings and working groups.  The former seems subuseful; this is why
CN> we have the pumpkings and working groups.  :-)

CN> I suppose it can't hurt anything as long as we don't take the voting too
CN> seriously; but if we aren't going to take it too seriously, what's the
CN> point?  If we do take it too seriously, it seems to me that it will harm
CN> more than help.  "We voted on such-and-such but so-and-so is doing
CN> something else instead."  Opinions are fine, but I think that a written
CN> proposal and discussion is more useful than a count of who likes what.  I'd
CN> rather just see interested parties come up with working groups they'd like
CN> to have, as many as they want, and let the perl6-poobahs (or whoever is
CN> selected by them to perform this task) approve or veto each.

-- 
Chaim Frenkel					     Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
chaimf@pobox.com				               +1-718-236-0183

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About