[sakai2-tcc] Override Votes

[John Norman]

FWIW I agree with this perspective.

The only thing I would add is attached to timing. If we want to allow time for consensus building then votes need to take place ahead of any deadline. Perhaps regularly throughout the year so things increment steadily.

John

On 15 Nov 2010, at 23:15, John A. Lewis wrote:

> I also have some concern about the Override Votes, mostly in that I
> think we may be doing them too quickly, and therefore too often. (I also
> think some folks may be voting -1 on things a bit too quickly and
> strenuously, which may also be causing the large number of Override
> Votes, but I'm getting ahead of myself.)
> 
> In other similar groups that I've worked with using Apache-style voting
> roles, the goal has been to work toward getting a -1 voter to change
> their vote to at least a 0. The main way to do this has either been to
> address their specific concerns (e.g. change the code so that it
> addresses a specific objection that caused their -1 vote) or to convince
> them -- hopefully with logic :) -- that their concern is
> incorrect/unfounded/exaggerated/etc. These would sometimes turn into
> multi-week discussions with multiple revisions of the thing under
> consideration, all in order to get the entire group to a point of
> consensus where the -1 votes would all turn into at least 0 votes, if
> not into +1 votes.
> 
> We should regard the need for an Override Vote as a failure of the
> group. One way or the other, we should be working the issue at hand so
> that we can get everyone onto the same page -- either eliminating all
> the -1 votes or getting a large number of -1 votes. Going to an Override
> Vote and having it pass means we are telling the dissenters that they
> are being unreasonable and we are not interested in their objections to
> the issue anymore. Doing this once or twice a year might be fine if
> we've truly exhausted the attempt at consensus -- doing this repeatedly
> will mean we have a dysfunctional meritocracy and need to revisit the
> makeup of the voting members.
> 
> I am as guilty as anyone (and probably more than most) at bowing to
> expediency in these matters. In the case of the hybrid-mode code
> changes, I scanned the objections that JF documented so well, I scanned
> Lance's response to them, and it looked to me like there was good faith
> work going on to address them. So I was willing to vote +1 for the code,
> and I was willing to vote YES on the Override. But if someone else, who
> is paying way more attention to the details than I am, thinks there are
> still some issues to be addressed, then we ought to keep working the
> issue until their concerns are assuaged. In hindsight, I think I should
> have noted NO on this Override, and perhaps on the others as well. Not
> because I don't want the changes (I very much want Sakai 2 to be
> completely supportive of Hybrid mode), but because I should support the
> right of someone else (who is watching the details more closely than I
> am) to block the issue with their -1 until they are able to get on board.
> 
> This does mean that voting -1 is a powerful statement, and (as Uncle Ben
> says) with great power comes great responsibility. We do need to make
> sure we are only using a -1 vote for things we genuinely find
> objectionable. If the rest of the group seems supportive of something
> and one finds that thing merely distasteful, the correct vote is 0 with
> appropriate concerns stated (which the group should still take to heart
> and try to address).
> 
> All that said, we are a new group and these are the learning experiences
> that we have to go through. So ultimately, I think this is healthy as
> long as we continue to self-evaluate and grow and adapt to provide the
> best stewardship of this project that we can.
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> 
> On 11/15/2010 01:07 PM, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
>> Does no one else here see a problem with the fact that 2 of the people
>> most involved with the core of the Sakai 2 codebase voted against this
>> code change and yet it still went in?
>> 
>> It seems like the override thing is being used far too much for my
>> comfort. Whatever happened to actually addressing concerns? Instead we
>> are just ignoring them and proceeding like they don't matter. I mean,
>> if I am just going to be overridden whenever I express concerns then I
>> am thinking my time is better spent elsewhere.
> _______________________________________________
> sakai2-tcc mailing list
> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc