1 |
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:56 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> As I said before, I believe the main purpose of the Council is to |
4 |
> encourage and facilitate feedback from the community, and make decisions |
5 |
> based on that feedback. If Council members fail to participate |
6 |
> in Community discussion phase, and instead express their feedback during |
7 |
> the meeting and vote based on that data, they take unfair advantage over |
8 |
> other community members who are prevented from being able to freely |
9 |
> address the new comments. |
10 |
|
11 |
While I agree with the principles behind most of your email, I also |
12 |
want to balance them with the fact that in almost any organization the |
13 |
people who tend to be viewed as having the most wisdom tend to also be |
14 |
the ones with the least time available for interaction. |
15 |
|
16 |
I guess a cynic might suggest that being more measured in your |
17 |
interactions with others tends to cause them to inflate their estimate |
18 |
of your wisdom. Perhaps that isn't even a bad thing. Certainly I've |
19 |
found that the less I talk the more people pay attention when I do. |
20 |
|
21 |
There needs to be a balance, and ultimately it is up to devs to elect |
22 |
the representatives that they want in charge. |
23 |
|
24 |
I think one issue we get on these lists is endless back-and-forth that |
25 |
doesn't go anywhere. I think this tends to drive a lot of people to |
26 |
just keep their thinking to themselves or just discuss it in private. |
27 |
If a council member knows that something they object to will get voted |
28 |
down, why would they engage in a lot of argument on the lists which |
29 |
takes time and perhaps damages their reputation. They can just show |
30 |
up and watch it get voted down. I don't think this is healthy for the |
31 |
community, but part of the problem is that we have bad incentives. |
32 |
|
33 |
I don't think we need more "slacker marks" but I would encourage |
34 |
Council members to at least: |
35 |
|
36 |
1. Read agenda proposals before the meeting. |
37 |
2. Share their thoughts on proposals on the lists. They shouldn't |
38 |
feel obligated to get into back-and-forth, but at least get their |
39 |
tentative thinking out. |
40 |
3. At least read the general responses to their thinking. |
41 |
4. Not be bound by anything they previously said when it comes time to |
42 |
vote. We want frank discussion at all points, and it is normal for |
43 |
opinions to change as a result of engagement. |
44 |
5. Volunteer to chair meetings and issue timely documentation of |
45 |
summaries, ideally created as the meeting goes along. |
46 |
|
47 |
On the flip side, I think the community at large and those making |
48 |
proposals to the Council also need to keep in mind that if you |
49 |
"punish" people for sharing their opinions, you just won't hear them |
50 |
in the future. It is ok to disagree or provide some argument. Just |
51 |
try not to make the process so painful or ascribe ill will to a degree |
52 |
where you're poisoning the well. |
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
Rich |