MOTU Decision Making Process

[Reinhard Tartler]

First words from my side, excellent proposal!

Stefan Potyra <sistpoty at ubuntu.com> writes:

>> If a process or policy is needed, my proposal would work something like
>> this:
>>
>> 1.  Someone makes an announcement to the MOTU ML describing the problem and
>> the proposed solution (much like this mail).
>>
>> 2.  MOTU discuss on the ML.
>>
>> 3.  The issue is on the agenda for the next meeting.  It's discussed at the
>> meeting and someone other than the person asking for the change is
>> appointed to guage the consensus on the issue.

Let's call that "someone other than the person asking for the change"
the shepard in the following.

>>
>> 4.  Meeting minutes get published that include the issue, a summary of the
>> discussion, and who is appointed to guage the consensus.
>>
>> 5.  More discussion on the ML the selected person tries to guage the rough
>> consensus of the group.
>>
>> 6.  That individual announces if rough consensus has been achieved.  If so,
>> the change is approved, if not, more disucssion and new proposals.
>>
>> 7.  Anyone who feels strongly that the consensus call was wrong, can appeal
>> to the MOTU Council who would have oversight over the process.
>>
> [..]
>
> sounds pretty good to me. Two comments:
> - For real uncontroversial issues, I don't really think the ping pong from 
> mailing list to meeting back to mailing list is needed (take motu-sru 
> membership discussion as an example -- even though that's not a very good 
> example for us coming to a decision fast *g*).

The very first sentence I quoted in this mail handles this case, I
think. Or at least, it should.

In the case of small, supposely uncontroverisal changes, the proposed
process would not need to be applied. However, if someone disagrees we
come to the situation that the issue is in fact controverial, revert the
relevant actions and start this procedure. Actions that cannot be
(easily) reverted are controversial by definition.

> - I guess if there are really controversial issues, we'd not be able to come 
> to a decision regarding those with this model? Maybe it should also be 
> possible to call for a vote after a certain time when no outcome is reached 
> until then?

I think the last rule can or should imply that the council has the
option to call for vote.

The shepard always has the possibilty to recommend a vote to the
council. If that is the case, the council would kinda have to call for
votes, or at least have a very good explanation for not calling for
votes.


-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4