Casey Ransberger wrote:
> Good people of Squeak,
>
> I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues. 
> Namespaces are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call 
> them Oddballs,) just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that 
> almost everyone who speaks out has a different idea about how to 
> #doIt. The conversation usually goes in a long circle, and then gets 
> garbage collected when everyone gets too fatigued with the debate to 
> continue it.
>
> Later, often much later, someone posts about the same topic again. 
> Usually it's a newbie who isn't aware of the longstanding debate 
> *raises hand.* Other times it's someone who's been around a little 
> while and is frustrated because the discussion died again *raises 
> hand*. Either way, a message gets sent that creates a new instance of 
> the discussion in question. Many arguments are repeated, and usually 
> the thread runs out of references and is eaten by the GC again.
>
> I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We 
> usually have a very small group of people who are actually compelled 
> to post. I thought we might try using the voting machinery we have set 
> up for board elections as a way of collecting information (polling) 
> about the popularity of various problems we have (or don't actually 
> have but think we have!) in the community. I'm not sure we even need 
> to treat it all that seriously... it would be neat to be able to rank 
> out the popularity of various approaches to e.g. namespaces somehow, 
> though, so I'd know which project to go offer to help hack on.

The poll could be used by the Board as relevant info, but the ultimate 
decision should be made by the Board. In addition, this decision making 
procedure should be used especially (and maybe only) when there is an 
actual decision to make, i.e. when somebody has volunteered to implement 
at least one of the options.

> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the 
> first SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in 
> squeak-dev, while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make 
> decisions about stuff like this, and then as a result get to make 
> progress, even on issues which are contentious in their community. I 
> don't know if we actually need or want a "working group," whatever 
> that is, but it would be nice to _have a pulse on the desires of the 
> broader Squeak community._
>
> To be clear: I just want to be able to rank the popularity of people's 
> solutions to various problems... not compel anyone to action. When 
> there's two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, 
> it would be nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that 
> I can quit arguing on a mailing list and #doIt.
>
> Thoughts? Love it? Hate it?
>
> -- 
> Casey Ransberger

Love it, of course. I really don't like when it looks like most people 
would have some particular opinion, but what really happened is that 
just one or two guys kept arguing until all the rest were just too tired 
to keep discussing.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich