Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: blue storm <bluestorm.dylc@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process
> Yes, but we should add some more rules:
> * designate 1 person that will sync discussion and OSR on the wiki
> (maybe the one who start the thread)
> * limit the time of disscussion (1 month)
> * limit the time of vote (1 week)
>
> If the time limit is reached, the current text (as sync by the person in
> charge on the wiki) is put on vote:
> <mail that should be sent>
> Subject: [OSR] XML processing --
> Read the OSR: http://wiki.cocan.org/osr/XMLProcessing.
>
> Choice:
> [ ] Accept the OSR
> [ ] Further discussion
>
> Please classify this choices (you should put 1 to the best choice).
> </mail that should be sent>
>
> We should find a way to allow only one vote per person.
>
> After one week of voting, choices are classified (Methode Condorcet) and
> the best choice win.
>
> If the choice is "Further discussion", the discussion should last
> another month.
>
> This way, you prevent endless discussion (non converging one) by a final
> decision after one month.
>
> Regards,
> Sylvain Le Gall

I'm sorry, but this seems far too complicated to me.
You jokingly admitted that Debian people tend to have "bureaucratic"
methods. Now i can see what you mean :)

I'm not fond of the "let's vote" idea. I think most discussions can be
sorted out by reaching a consensus, wich is a vaguely defined idea,
but works very well in practice.

1) We have seen no need for such a "political" structure for now. What
are you trying to fix with such a method ?
The only real thing we have now is the I/O specification (
http://www.ocaml-programming.de/rec/IO-Classes.html ), wich are real,
emerged from developpers discussion, and certainly didn't required a
"community" voting process.

2) I can see problems in your "constitution" draft. To fix them you'd
have to add even more bureaucratic definitions.

As an example : who vote ? Anybody ? "Registered members" ?
In the XML standardization effort, who would vote ? How could someone
who never use XML vote, and have the same "power" than a ocaml XML
library developper ? This is nonsense. You could restrict the voting
process to the XML developpers only, but then you'd have other
problems (and XML libs users ? etc.).

Do we really need to vote ? I don't think so. I even think that
putting such rigid rules too early could harm the process : a vote
that is perceived as meaningless by most (and each time you've got
more than two choices, there is a chance that the majority disagree
with the result) is worse than no vote at all : you've got a
meaningless "standard".

I suggest we keep to the simple principles that have worked well in
other projects, for a very long time :
- try to resolve problems by consensus, not vote (although vote in
specific situations is of course possible)
- generally, let those who do the work decide. If one disagrees, he
can works up a better solution, instead of starting an endless
"policital" debate.

As you said earlier :
> That is "keep it simple and stupide" (KISS)! That is great, easy and direct.
> I like it.