From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDDBBC6C for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:25:52 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJ5soEfAXQImh2dsb2JhbACQJgEBAQgKKZd4h38 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,279,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="21992675" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 21:25:50 +0100 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0UKPoHO001373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:25:50 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAACxsoEdA6bjlkWdsb2JhbACQJgEBAQEHBAQLCBEHl3eHfw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,279,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="6756724" Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.229]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 21:25:49 +0100 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c57so401957wra.9 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:25:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=cJZ/t/XzvRFdmM5218HqPBydVdUtDKIZdSG5AjVlgrE=; b=qn2VdS4NMyFgUlP9gqQdajxk7Z9uWx3dwFB+IAXfV7bfJUpqz8Us9r6E9XY4yWZWxHuobWvL5FKgPtLb73d4gTlAitxd5Elz3uvkGsdUOOa6t7ImP6ZWfPtAK79uM5cYc/GtXupG5HkROKcqf49l12x0ervgERwO17NfFaof6Oc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Etlb8Rt799SANCpX93tyL+AALNt1pf0bhPdu58E+JfFyq5KUKrYMQKPQYt/ML1fBkThoIst+1MXcY0nB478HgwZc9qOQg8Sl9GwXYS9dpnKWba684G5UKo9mwe6ZWt5Vovp9390hvhggM8irZGkJfNxpdBe/XJCF6F5WW60QNZs= Received: by 10.142.90.8 with SMTP id n8mr666943wfb.84.1201724746942; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.139.13 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:25:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <527cf6bc0801301225r210faed0y860d56c6e49572c9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:25:46 +0100 From: "blue storm" To: "Sylvain Le Gall" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1201440183.6302.27.camel@Blefuscu> X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 47A0DD4E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 wiki:01 wiki:01 vaguely:01 developpers:01 ocaml:01 developpers:01 libs:01 storm:98 kiss:98 rec:01 meaningless:01 meaningless:01 caml-list:01 defined:02 > 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: > > 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). > > > 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.