Hannes Magnusson <[email protected]> wrote:
>I like the old approach better. When no clear consensus were reached,
>we would vote. Anyone in the world could vote on the mailinglist, and
>votes were creatively interpreted grouping people with karma vs community.
>
>Doing the same with polling is however difficult. Its a whole lot
>easier to spot fraud emails then it is to spot people signing up with multiple
>wiki accounts with the intentions of skewing the results.
It shouldn't be a secret that I never liked the voting idea. Votes leave proposers with further
information but a rejection. It easily happens that in the discussion phase before no clear guidance
approaches (people ot argueing, people waiting just for the vote, specific people being pulled in to
vote "correctly", ...) which can be massively unconstructive for future contributions.
(There's some nice articel from the Subversion authors, I think, on community work)
Yes, a consensus driven decision process can be tough, but can produce better results than a vote.
(Not mentioning all the confusion around votes, is a vote about concept or a solution or ...)
johannes