RE: [dita] DITA 1.3 Proposal Process

["Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com>]

Any of the three flavors of a No vote indicate problems with the
proposal that should be addressed, even if only to acknowledge them and
say "but we nonetheless did it this way because of these reasons."
Ideally, we reach agreement. Lacking full agreement, we aim to have
dissenters brought along with the majority perhaps grumbling but not
kicking and screaming because we all have to live with the ramifications
down the road.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:48 PM
> To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin)
> Cc: dita
> Subject: RE: [dita] DITA 1.3 Proposal Process
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> As indicated in your note, and in a couple of the comments 
> today, there is some hesitation about having so many options 
> for voting at step 2.
> 
> So, as a reminder - with 1.2, those on the call essentially 
> had 3 options:
> 1. Outspoken agreement, from the two who moved and seconded 
> 2. Silence 3. Vocal objection
> 
> There's been a suggestion that some proposals only got in to 
> 1.2 because nobody was willing to be the one to say "No". 
> There's also been a suggestion that this unwillingness to say 
> "No" will not change, which is why we ended up with several options.
> 
> So - I think your breakdown is accurate. It comes down to 
> Yes, Yes (no objection), No, No (doesn't make sense), and No 
> (not worth it). If we want to describe the votes that way, 
> that's fine - but I think going to a flat yes or no, with 
> optional clarification, will get us back to the original 
> problem that people seem unwilling to vote "No" directly.
> 
> As for the "Standing aside" vote - I'm a little reluctant 
> about that only because I'm afraid it would end up being an 
> easy vote for people who don't really want to think about the 
> proposal or register any opinion at all, much like the 
> "silence" option in 1.2. It also feels like this should 
> qualify as a "no" vote if the vote is already close. That is 
> - standing aside to allow for unanimity doesn't make sense if 
> people are already voting no, right? It seems to me that if 
> you have objections, that should be a no; if you don't have 
> objections, there's the "Allow, but it's not necessarily 
> something I want" option.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Robert D Anderson
> IBM Authoring Tools Development
> Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> 
> 
>                                                               
>              
>              "Bruce Nevin                                     
>              
>              (bnevin)"                                        
>              
>              <bnevin@cisco.com                                
>           To 
>              >                         Robert D               
>              
>                                        
> Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS,       
>              08/03/2010 12:22          "dita" 
> <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>  
>              PM                                               
>           cc 
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>      Subject 
>                                        RE: [dita] DITA 1.3 
> Proposal        
>                                        Process                
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nudged by Gershon's spoken desire to look a bit longer at 
> phase 2 of the process, I revisited it. Five voter responses 
> are listed for phase 2:
> 
> 1. Yes.
> 2. Sure, whatever. Not enough interest to try to understand 
> fully, but no objection to moving forward.
> 3. No.
> 4. Do not understand - the proposal as written and described 
> does not make sense.
> 5. Have reservations (or some better name) - meaning "I'm not 
> sure I can or care to invest the time to understand this 
> fully, but I don't think the explanation of the use case 
> warrants going any further with this."
> 
> Essentially, this amounts to Yes vs. No, with an invitation 
> to elaborate on the reasons for one's vote--especially a no vote.
> 
> 1. Yes.
> Optionally can stipulate that this is an uninformed 'no 
> objection' vote.
> 
> 2. No.
> Optionally can stipulate:
> a. Need clarification or more info.
> b. Don't want clarification or more info, it doesn't seem 
> worth the effort. This is an uninformed (don't care to drill 
> into it) vote, but the use case is unconvincing.
> 
> The 'annotations' to a No vote are to guide the proposer(s) 
> in recasting the proposal for a new submission (or not).
> 
> Obviously, phase one may also run into objections, 
> reservations, and requests for more information. The 
> difference is that at stage 2 everyone expects to understand 
> the proposal well (or not care). At stage
> 1 all that must be clear is the problem or use case, and if a 
> solution is proposed no one expects it to be water-tight.
> 
> There's a second 'annotation' possibility for a Yes vote, 
> what Quakers call 'standing aside'. A person may register 
> their concerns or reservations for the record, but be willing 
> to stand aside so as not to block approval. This can be an 
> important option if the vote is close or if (like the 
> Quakers) we seek unanimity.
> 
> 		 /B
> 
> 
>