You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@fineract.apache.org by Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org> on 2015/12/31 13:49:30 UTC
How to get our processes bootstrapped
Hi Fins,
We've been having discussions about what processes we want, but we haven't
agreed yet on how to institute processes or how to change them once we've
instituted them. I've put my thoughts on the matter into a short document
here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Changing+Processes
I'd love to read your opinions on the matter too.
Greets from Germany,
Myrle
*Myrle Krantz*
Solutions Architect
RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org
<http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
Re: How to get our processes bootstrapped
Posted by Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org>.
Hi guys,
'Tis the nature of democracy that you will vote for winning proposals more
often then you will vote for losing proposals. But you will occasionally
vote for a loser. Based on your three vetoes ;o) I've adjusted the
document. Any objections to it's current form?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Changing+Processes
Greets,
Myrle
*Myrle Krantz*
Solutions Architect
RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org
<http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> +1 - some things are so important it is worth piling on when there is
> nothing to add...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:26 AM
> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How to get our processes bootstrapped
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Fins,
> > >
> > > We've been having discussions about what processes we want, but we
> > haven't
> > > agreed yet on how to institute processes or how to change them once
> > > we've instituted them. I've put my thoughts on the matter into a
> > > short
> > document
> > > here:
> > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcwi
> > > ki.apache.org%2fconfluence%2fdisplay%2fFINERACT%2fChanging%2bProcess
> > > es&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c47448b01623d455f867
> > > 008d3125b4258%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ooVkiIT0u
> > > vdM81Gk6y%2bHPVruQhP3qiRjQEz4U0DmATA%3d
> > >
> > > I'd love to read your opinions on the matter too.
> >
> > In general, my strong advise to any young community is to avoid formal
> > votes as a plague. At its core ASF runs on natural, not forced
> > consensus. Any time there's a natural consensus -- you really don't
> > need a vote. Any time there's a formal vote as a forcing function to a
> > consensus -- you inevitably end up creating winners and losers. You
> > really don't need that. At least not while the community is still
> > young (and even when it grows up -- you don't
> > *really* need it).
> >
>
> I absolutely concur with the above. VERY MUCH.
>
> Roman is right: there is no need to define winners/losers. Consensus means
> "those who agree" and "those who disagree, but will abide with the will of
> the community." Don't separate the groups. Just understand they will exist,
> and move onwards. A simple discussion is enough, and any real disagreement
> will surface at that time.
>
> In the 15 years that Apache Subversion has existed, the community has
> taken a formal vote only TWICE. One was for a code formatting choice where
> clear consensus wasn't present, and the other... I don't even know. We've
> gone a DECADE without a vote. ... yet Apache Subversion is one of the most
> popular pieces of software on the planet and has had over a hundred
> releases.
> Clearly, a community doesn't require voting to be successful.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
RE: How to get our processes bootstrapped
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
+1 - some things are so important it is worth piling on when there is nothing to add...
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 3:26 AM
To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to get our processes bootstrapped
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org> wrote:
> > Hi Fins,
> >
> > We've been having discussions about what processes we want, but we
> haven't
> > agreed yet on how to institute processes or how to change them once
> > we've instituted them. I've put my thoughts on the matter into a
> > short
> document
> > here:
> >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcwi
> > ki.apache.org%2fconfluence%2fdisplay%2fFINERACT%2fChanging%2bProcess
> > es&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c47448b01623d455f867
> > 008d3125b4258%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ooVkiIT0u
> > vdM81Gk6y%2bHPVruQhP3qiRjQEz4U0DmATA%3d
> >
> > I'd love to read your opinions on the matter too.
>
> In general, my strong advise to any young community is to avoid formal
> votes as a plague. At its core ASF runs on natural, not forced
> consensus. Any time there's a natural consensus -- you really don't
> need a vote. Any time there's a formal vote as a forcing function to a
> consensus -- you inevitably end up creating winners and losers. You
> really don't need that. At least not while the community is still
> young (and even when it grows up -- you don't
> *really* need it).
>
I absolutely concur with the above. VERY MUCH.
Roman is right: there is no need to define winners/losers. Consensus means "those who agree" and "those who disagree, but will abide with the will of the community." Don't separate the groups. Just understand they will exist, and move onwards. A simple discussion is enough, and any real disagreement will surface at that time.
In the 15 years that Apache Subversion has existed, the community has taken a formal vote only TWICE. One was for a code formatting choice where clear consensus wasn't present, and the other... I don't even know. We've gone a DECADE without a vote. ... yet Apache Subversion is one of the most popular pieces of software on the planet and has had over a hundred releases.
Clearly, a community doesn't require voting to be successful.
Cheers,
-g
Re: How to get our processes bootstrapped
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org> wrote:
> > Hi Fins,
> >
> > We've been having discussions about what processes we want, but we
> haven't
> > agreed yet on how to institute processes or how to change them once we've
> > instituted them. I've put my thoughts on the matter into a short
> document
> > here:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Changing+Processes
> >
> > I'd love to read your opinions on the matter too.
>
> In general, my strong advise to any young community is to avoid formal
> votes
> as a plague. At its core ASF runs on natural, not forced consensus. Any
> time
> there's a natural consensus -- you really don't need a vote. Any time
> there's a formal vote as a forcing function to a consensus -- you
> inevitably end up
> creating winners and losers. You really don't need that. At least not
> while the
> community is still young (and even when it grows up -- you don't
> *really* need it).
>
I absolutely concur with the above. VERY MUCH.
Roman is right: there is no need to define winners/losers. Consensus means
"those who agree" and "those who disagree, but will abide with the will of
the community." Don't separate the groups. Just understand they will exist,
and move onwards. A simple discussion is enough, and any real disagreement
will surface at that time.
In the 15 years that Apache Subversion has existed, the community has taken
a formal vote only TWICE. One was for a code formatting choice where clear
consensus wasn't present, and the other... I don't even know. We've gone a
DECADE without a vote. ... yet Apache Subversion is one of the most popular
pieces of software on the planet and has had over a hundred releases.
Clearly, a community doesn't require voting to be successful.
Cheers,
-g
Re: How to get our processes bootstrapped
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Myrle Krantz <mk...@mifos.org> wrote:
> Hi Fins,
>
> We've been having discussions about what processes we want, but we haven't
> agreed yet on how to institute processes or how to change them once we've
> instituted them. I've put my thoughts on the matter into a short document
> here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Changing+Processes
>
> I'd love to read your opinions on the matter too.
In general, my strong advise to any young community is to avoid formal votes
as a plague. At its core ASF runs on natural, not forced consensus. Any time
there's a natural consensus -- you really don't need a vote. Any time
there's a formal vote as a forcing function to a consensus -- you
inevitably end up
creating winners and losers. You really don't need that. At least not while the
community is still young (and even when it grows up -- you don't
*really* need it).
My second point is that documenting practices is good, but creating bylaws or
anything resembling a formal governance documents is typically a bad idea
for the same reasons I've outlined in the first paragraph.
Once again: ASF is a doocracy. You don't need permissions -- not much of them
anyway. You JFDI most of things around here and then if how you did it turns
to be a repeatable pattern you document it (or somebody else does).
Thanks,
Roman.