|
From: | Stan Shebs |
Subject: | Re: [Gdbheads] Let's resolve this quickly |
Date: | Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:50:21 -0800 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 |
Bob Rossi wrote:
Votes are public. Should they be private? I think they should be public; the decision is being made with the public's trust.Private. As a result of various conversations with GCC SC people over the past 5-6 years, I think it's better to have the SC speaking with one voice. This shouldn't be like real-life politics, where you have factions wired into a zero-sum game, and where stabbing people in the back is just one more tactic (remember what I said about trust?). Public GCC SC votes would tend to alter the patch lobbying process as randoms start pitching their stuff to particular SC members thought favorable, in the hopes of outflanking maintainers.Could you please explain better why the votes should be private? Somehow I feel that making the votes private isn't necessary. You seem to be suggesting that if votes are public, other people on the SC will vote for their "best friend". Is that accurate? If that is your point, I don't think it is a good enough point to make the votes private. If I want to vote what my best friend votes, I just ask him what he voted, and then vote the same. The only difference is, the votes are held back from the community. If the votes were private, would they be made public at the time of the decision?
No; it would be a single answer, as if issued by a single person with a multi-lobed brain. :-) It could be made to work either way, but have you ever looked at homeowners' boards or city councils? They very often have a "sunshine policy" requiring public meetings, but it's a somewhat of a sham; sooner or later they have to discuss somebody's raise or the like that nobody wants to be done in public, and then they go into "executive session". Or they'll have a "three person" rule, saying that if three members are in the same place at the same time, it's an official meeting that has to be publicized. It's like I couldn't send a GDB-related email to both Jim and Klee. The net effect is that the council/board/committee members have to grandstand all the time in their public meetings; if they say something wrong about somebody in public, it's a Big Deal, and so they end up dancing around real issues. We do things this way in real life situations, because long experience in that real life tells us that the money and power involved are invariably corrupting, and that we simply cannot trust people in those situations. Thus my message about trust; although some distrust has developed recently, I would like everybody to "take the pledge" to trust each other when it comes to GDB. If we have that, which I think is entirely possible, we can bypass a lot of complexity that would be required by a more adversarial system. Stan
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |