On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Eric Rostetter wrote: > > In the Fedora Legacy docs, we use the terms "Consensus" and "Veto" which > maybe are not the best way to do things. > > Consensus seeks that all or the vast majority of the participants be "for" > a position. Veto means that something can be rejected without cause or > reason. > > Instead, it might be suggested we switch to a system of "Consent" in which > we don't need everyone to agree on something, but rather just that no one > is against it. In order for it not to pass, anyone who is against it must > be supported by a valid argument for their position. > > In other words, instead of requiring mass support, we just need to lack of > opposition. And in order to oppose it, the opposition must provide a > valid argument against it. > > Thoughts? This sounds pretty good, Eric, though I am only finding the use of the word "consensus" in our online docs a few places, and those mainly in the wiki (nodes "UpdatedOverview" and "QaTesting"). Are there other places I am not seeing it that you are concerned about? I guess it all depends upon what kinds of activities you feel we need to use a "consent" model for. The various activities of our Project seem to require different levels of control. Publishing things to the wiki, for example, seems to be a consent thing, in that things get put there until someone else objects, or just goes in and changes it. Though "acquiesce" may be another way to talk about the wiki, considering the spam we get there. ;-) Basically, it seems like consent, the way you define it, is the way we're doing things now anyway. It is kinda the concept of "Do it now, and apologize later," which gets results; a philosophy of "Don't do it until you get permission," seems to cause things to languish, because nobody remembers to give permission. And we're all really pretty good at catching when someone else makes a mistake. You know, the old addage that "Nobody ever listens until you make a mistake." ;-) HOWEVER -- in QA testing in the bugzilla, we must keep a permission (or formal consent) model -- things mustn't be verified to updates-testing or published to updates until there is (at least one, probably better two) positive, PGP signed, votes from people doing QA work. QA cannot happen without this kind of permission given. It seems that, generally, if there is a negative comment given in bugzilla, items do not move forward. Instead of veto, maybe the idea of "valid blocking issue," (or "Marc or Dominic veto" which is the same thing 99% of the time ;-) ) or something like that, could be used. By the way, Eric, I like what you have done with "How to use Bugzilla" on the fedoralegacy.org website <http://fedoralegacy.org/docs/bugzilla.php>. It looks pretty up-to-date in sync with our new bugzilla at Red Hat. :-) -David -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
