13 ms·

> Open decision making: And that communication will be open to the public, so that everyone can weigh in, vote, and determine what happens to the project How i

> Open decision making: And that communication will be open to the public, so that everyone can weigh in, vote, and determine what happens to the project How is this a thing? Not in my experience. The public has access to issue tracking and maybe a foo-users-l@mailserver.org . Open decision-making, in projects which I know practice it, means contributors (hopefully) and significant stake-holders get to participate in decision making, not everybody and their uncle.

BiteCode_dev 7y ago
Most popular FOSS project do not follow this model at all. Linux, VLC, LibreOffice, Posgres, Firefox, Chrome, VSCode... Sure, you can see part of the communication and have an input channel, but unless you are part of the inner circle, or have some influence over it, you won't be able to see everything, weigh in, vote or determine anything. Which is sane: the number of competent people is limited. The ones inside the circle can't spend their time fighting with the debate from outside. They have to get a way to filter information, take decision and act. People stating differently have either never been part of a successful big project, or have been blind by the discourse that their project is, while in fact, there is an informal inner circle despite their institution stating otherwise. It's like when you meet a "leaderless" group. If it's a small group, it works. If it's a big group, either it doesn't, or an informal hierarchy with leaders exist but nobody acknowledge it out of ignorance or idealism.
- cipherboy 7y ago
  > Most popular FOSS project do not follow this model at all. Most don't explicitly, but... > Sure, you can see part of the communication and have an input channel, but unless you are part of the inner circle, or have some influence over it, you won't be able to see everything, weigh in, vote or determine anything. Isn't mutually exclusive from open decision making. Red Hat formalized and opened up our approach to this problem [0]. We actually use it, too. As another sibling of your said ('gwd): > Everyone being able to participate isn't the same as everyone having identical influence. In particular, most anyone has an avenue to participate, but that doesn't mean everyone is involved in explicitly making the final decision. The examples of use aren't complete in that repo. Fedora is currently in the process of using it for the Git Forge selection process, Red Hat used parts of it at various times in our logo process [1]. And I'm sure there's other uses I'm missing. The logo process is probably the best example: for numerous reasons (trademark law, ...), 12k employees community designing a new logo just wouldn't work. There'd necessarily be cohesion in the final product. So we were given input at various stages (what do you think of X, Y or Z... polls, open meetings, &c) and from all of that feedback, the designers formed the logo. Was it a perfect process? Nah. But you definitely say you got input into it. And yes, I'm a 'hatter. [0]: https://github.com/red-hat-people-team/open-decision-framework https://github.com/red-hat-people-team/open-decision-framewo... [1]: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/our-brand/open-brand-project https://www.redhat.com/en/about/our-brand/open-brand-project
gwd 7y ago
> Open decision-making, in my experience, means contributors and significant stake-holders get to participate in decision making, not everybody and their uncle. Everyone being able to participate isn't the same as everyone having identical influence. In my community, anyone and their uncle can chime in on discussions on our mailing list; and even to chime in on each and every single patch that's proposed. If what my uncle writes makes sense to people, he'll probably persuade people and have an influence. But if he's just expressing his personal preference, he won't gain much traction unless he becomes a regular contributor.

BiteCode_dev 7y ago

Most popular FOSS project do not follow this model at all. Linux, VLC, LibreOffice, Posgres, Firefox, Chrome, VSCode... Sure, you can see part of the communication and have an input channel, but unless you are part of the inner circle, or have some influence over it, you won't be able to see everything, weigh in, vote or determine anything. Which is sane: the number of competent people is limited. The ones inside the circle can't spend their time fighting with the debate from outside. They have to get a way to filter information, take decision and act. People stating differently have either never been part of a successful big project, or have been blind by the discourse that their project is, while in fact, there is an informal inner circle despite their institution stating otherwise. It's like when you meet a "leaderless" group. If it's a small group, it works. If it's a big group, either it doesn't, or an informal hierarchy with leaders exist but nobody acknowledge it out of ignorance or idealism.

cipherboy 7y ago
> Most popular FOSS project do not follow this model at all. Most don't explicitly, but... > Sure, you can see part of the communication and have an input channel, but unless you are part of the inner circle, or have some influence over it, you won't be able to see everything, weigh in, vote or determine anything. Isn't mutually exclusive from open decision making. Red Hat formalized and opened up our approach to this problem [0]. We actually use it, too. As another sibling of your said ('gwd): > Everyone being able to participate isn't the same as everyone having identical influence. In particular, most anyone has an avenue to participate, but that doesn't mean everyone is involved in explicitly making the final decision. The examples of use aren't complete in that repo. Fedora is currently in the process of using it for the Git Forge selection process, Red Hat used parts of it at various times in our logo process [1]. And I'm sure there's other uses I'm missing. The logo process is probably the best example: for numerous reasons (trademark law, ...), 12k employees community designing a new logo just wouldn't work. There'd necessarily be cohesion in the final product. So we were given input at various stages (what do you think of X, Y or Z... polls, open meetings, &c) and from all of that feedback, the designers formed the logo. Was it a perfect process? Nah. But you definitely say you got input into it. And yes, I'm a 'hatter. [0]: https://github.com/red-hat-people-team/open-decision-framework https://github.com/red-hat-people-team/open-decision-framewo... [1]: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/our-brand/open-brand-project https://www.redhat.com/en/about/our-brand/open-brand-project

gwd 7y ago

> Open decision-making, in my experience, means contributors and significant stake-holders get to participate in decision making, not everybody and their uncle. Everyone being able to participate isn't the same as everyone having identical influence. In my community, anyone and their uncle can chime in on discussions on our mailing list; and even to chime in on each and every single patch that's proposed. If what my uncle writes makes sense to people, he'll probably persuade people and have an influence. But if he's just expressing his personal preference, he won't gain much traction unless he becomes a regular contributor.