Hi

I think that what is also important to consider is that we do not own  
the people time.
And even if you vote because you want something to be done, it may  
happen that nothing happen at the end.

Stef


> Hi everyone. I personally think that Andreas Raab has a completely  
> legitimate complaint. I don't think the community has the tools to  
> make transparent decisions in a way that is participative, so the  
> best that can happen at the moment is a mailing list discussion  
> that sort of peters out and then someone decides what happened.
>
> These things take a lot of time, and in the end, the decision is  
> not really representative. I think this outcome is characteristic  
> of email - it is hard to do much better in this medium.
>
> In the context of the coming stepping down of the (self selected)  
> SqF Board, an election team has been formed, and a few of us think  
> that the first ingredient we need to be a community that makes  
> represented decisions, is a voting system. This consists of some  
> software (website that allows issues and alternative solutions to  
> be registered), some rules (who gets to vote?), and mostly the  
> participation of the community.
>
> Our current proposal for the voting software is at
> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/5835
>
> We are looking for comment on these requirements, and for someone  
> with web development skills to help implement.
>
> There are existing systems that provide part of the functionality,  
> for example CIVS at
> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html
>
> The reason to roll our own solution here is that we want to  
> automate the whole process, in order to make it possible for anyone  
> to initiate a vote, with no hidden parts.
>
> About eligibility to vote, this is a more contentious issue I am  
> not addressing here, except to mention that we want to be able to  
> represent the wide Squeak community, and that we generally think  
> SqP is not a bad mechanism for registering voters.
>
> Daniel
> PS - the coming elections will probably be performed in CIVS, for  
> lack of a better system, but someone else will write more about  
> that, the next election is not my main concern.
>
>
> Andreas Raab wrote:
>> stéphane ducasse wrote:
>>> The same that was in 3.6, 3.7, 3.8.
>> Which, like I said, is equally bad in this regard.
>>> We proposed a list of points that we would work on and waited  
>>> for  feedback.
>> Sure. I didn't say there was no feedback, I said there was no  
>> transparent decision process. Or put differently, once you had  
>> that feedback, who made the decision to include those points and  
>> not others in the 3.9a list? To choose X over Y? Based on which  
>> authority did that person or group make the decision? And  
>> (arguably) most importantly (at least to avoid endless  
>> discussions) is there any kind of documentation (links to email  
>> threads for example) about the discussion and the decision?
>> This whole discussion started by an accusation that soms people  
>> drive only their personal agenda - and the best to contradict this  
>> is to point to the decision process and say "look, here is where  
>> discussed this, here is vote/decision process, this is the result  
>> and it's explicity documented here for people just like you who  
>> don't read Squeak-dev daily and have not been following the  
>> discussion closely".
>>> At least contrary to before, the list was explicit.
>> The previous versions were actually no less explicit if you go  
>> over the mailing list archives but they were not as well  
>> documented so I see that as a definitive improvement.
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>