Moving features from HEAD to testing
jeremy at jenacon.net
Sat May 15 05:09:15 PDT 2004
On Saturday 15 May 2004 07:33 am, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> The proposal would be posted (either here, or made
> available online) and be open to counter-arguments for a period of
> between 1-2 weeks. These counter-arguments should also be in relation
> to the goals and end results of an LFS system.
> By time-limiting the discussion, we ensure that decisions will be
> made in a timely manner (and that decisions *will* be made at all).
> By limiting the nature of the arguments we move away from the
> ridiculous +1/-1 voting system that is completely worthless in this
> community, as a simple vote tally will never demonstrate any kind of
> adherence to the projects goals/policies. As mentioned before we'll
> never achieve 100% consensus, and as yet we don't have a policy
> outlining what % consensus is required to carry a change forward.
I had been playing with a similar idea for the last day or two after
reading all the back and forth in the recent discussions. I was
holding back though, because, being pretty new, I wasn't sure how it
would be receieved. Anyway, time-limiting the discussion seems a
fairly wise course. IMHO, if you establish a way to have "official"
proposals, and a time-limit for anyone actively involved to discuss/
banter, you will spark more feedback from the general community and
propel the discussion forward. If you do invoke such a system, perhaps
you could also add some way to attach and track each user's vote to the
main proposal, a database or something similar, so that a record that
is at once readable and expressive can be kept to show how the
community responded to the proposal (instead of having to manually
search through each post to tally the votes). Of course, as you
mentioned you will also have to decide what % consensus is enough to
adopt or reject a proposal.
More information about the lfs-dev