Integrated feedback from this thread thus far and responded to comments on
the doc. Should be open to everyone for comment now.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:41 PM Jon Haddad wrote:
> > With regards to CEPs, I personally don't see any value in voting to start
> one.
>
> Agree with this, and I'd go even further - requiring a vote in order to
> propose an idea runs so counter to the idea of a CEP that it would default
> the purpose of even having them. The CEP is the _proposal_ for a change
> that gets fleshed out enough so people can understand the idea and _then_
> vote on it, not the other way around.
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:51 PM Benedict Elliott Smith >
> wrote:
>
> > I think the 24 hours point that was raised was pointed to being too short
> > was just for the roll-call; I personally that think for closing down a
> > discussion, 24 hours is acceptable in order to assist progress, since it
> > should only be called when it's clear the discussion has halted or
> > consensus has likely been reached. If in retrospect it appears that was
> > wrong, we can always cancel the vote.
> >
> > With regards to CEPs, I personally don't see any value in voting to start
> > one. There's nothing to stop proposers seeking advice, discussion and
> > collaborators beforehand, but voting on it seems premature until there's
> at
> > least some concrete proposal that's had some thought put into it, and an
> > initial round of wider discussion. There's already a community cost to
> the
> > process, too, and we don't want it to be overly burdensome.
> >
> >
> > On 04/06/2020, 22:39, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote:
> >
> > On the topic of CEP's, I'd advocate for us trying a couple/few out
> > first
> > and seeing what uncertainties arise as being troublesome and see if
> we
> > can't codify a best practice around them. To date we've had only a
> > couple
> > CEP's actively move and a few in draft pre-move pending more progress
> > on
> > 4.0 so I don't think we have enough signal on how they evolve to know
> > what
> > we might want to address through this doc. Does that make sense?
> >
> > 24 hours to close down lazy consensus does feel pretty quick by
> > default; I
> > think a default 72 hour with flexibility based on the topic (i.e.
> like
> > adding testing to the CEP guideline; super non-controversial) we can
> > just
> > run with things and revert if they're off.
> >
> >
> > Speaking of revert - that's one thing that was a real eye opener for
> me
> > personally philosophically in the past few weeks; git revert exists
> > for a
> > reason and if we all changed our posture to periodic reverts being a
> > healthy thing rather than shameful or contentious, we can all move a
> > lot
> > faster together in trust and revert when mistakes invariably happen.
> > Not
> > that we should start ninja'ing in 40k patches of course, but
> hopefully
> > the
> > point makes sense and resonates in terms of it being a continuum
> we're
> > perhaps quite extreme on culturally as a project.
> >
> > And we all have a sense for when something's more controversial, so
> we
> > have
> > CEP's to lean on. I dunno, makes sense in my head. :)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:13 PM Mick Semb Wever
> wrote:
> >
> > > > A link to the current draft of the governance doc is here:
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wOrJBkgudY2BxEVtubq9IbiFFC3d3efJSj9OIrGcqQ8/edit#
> > > >
> > > > The doc is only 2 pages long; if you're interested in engaging
> in a
> > > > discussion about how we evolve and collaborate as a project,
> > please take
> > > > some time to read through the doc, think through things, and
> > engage on
> > > this
> > > > thread here.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Benedict and Josh. This is an awesome initiative to put out
> > in the
> > > open and include everyone in.
> > >
> > > My question is around the CEP lifecycle, how one is established and
> > how it
> > > exits (or moves into a real implementation stage). I guess that is
> an
> > > evolving discussion, and also depends on the nature of the
> > individual CEP.
> > > But it raises the questions of when do we apply the vote. For
> > example I can
> > > imagine two votes on a CEP: once to accept an CEP to start in
> > earnest, and
> > > a second time on the finalised CEP that the working group has
> > > finalised. As CEPs
> > > can evolve to quite a different place from their original idea.
> > Maybe we
> > > don't need that entry vote, as the document implies, but I'm not
> > entirely
> > > sure about that: i think some initial exposure and discussion can
> be
> > > valuable to prevent wasted adventures.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Mick
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail
