Re: Coordinator timeouts (was Re: Managers, addressses and the like)

[Mark Little <mcl@arjuna.com>]

> I did not imply that the conversation didn't take place, I said that no
decision
> was taken on it. That is all.

OK, it was probably a misunderstanding on my part when reading the email. As
a (slight) aside, this is one of the reasons I'd actually prefer a
mini-face-to-face at JavaOne, assuming interested parties can get there -
email and telephone just don't convey sufficient information.

> Consensus, as we have seen recently, is a slippery and plastic thing.
Votes are
> votes. And minutes that are oriented to recording precise decisions (and
up for
> challenge/amendment, of course) are my preference.

I agree that anything that was officially voted on should definitely occur
in any minutes. However, (and this is where it becomes more difficult), it
would be good if general discussions that occurred around such votes were
referenced. Obviously things such as "A said this, B said that" etc. can
become too difficult to follow, but a topic-overview can help to reinforce
memories when issues like this come up. It's definitely not easy, and I
would be the first to say that I wouldn't like to do it and have the
greatest admiration for people (e.g., Peter) who can!

> If the body wants to take a
> different approach, I will of course accept the majority view. I didn't
have
> time to produce an attempt at verbatim minutes for such a dense agenda as
the
> one we partially hacked through in Mt. Laurel. I'm not sure it would have
added
> much if I had tried.
>
> I hope I didn't "decide what was voted on" as chair.

I think this is a misunderstanding from my email: I didn't mean to imply
that you had decided, it was a more general reference to the chair calling
for votes on specific issues. Who suggests the votes is a separate issue,
and I for one have no objection to the way in which you carried this out.

>  I certainly gave a lead
> (why chair otherwise?) but I tried to bend over backwards to give everyone
an
> opportunity to make proposals, explore different ways of resolving
debates, and
> to ensure that concrete, precise decisions were made.
>
> If anyone had said "I want this proposal to be voted" or "that seems like
a
> decision, does anyone have any objection to minuting it as such?", it is
> inconceivable that I would have done anything other than ensure that
occurred.

Agreed, and I never thought otherwise.

> This did not happen in the case you are raising. In my view and memory it
was a
> glancing adjunct to the agenda point entitled "Participant timeouts",
where the
> proposal voted concerned ... participant timeouts. That is why it didn't
make it
> into already lengthy decision-oriented minutes.

Yes, it was as we were going through the email that Peter had printed out
for us.

> Can I emphasize that I am not trying to take a legalistic or
discussion-blocking
> approach. I do think it's important to distinguish proposals, debates and
> decisions. But if a decision is based on insufficient debate (like the
decision
> to enable one-shotness) then I will be the last person to jump up and say:
"we
> shouldn't talk about this, it's already been decided".
>
> Why don't we vote your proposal on coordinator timeouts as recorded in the
> recent e-mail exchange, at the next meeting? You already have my vote on
this
> substantive point. Then there won't be any ambiguity.

I'd certainly like to see it, and a lot of the other things that we have
been discussing over email of late appear on the next agenda for vote. As we
agreed at the Mt Laurel face-to-face, we have little time and lots of work
to do.

>
> I think the same should go for several issues discussed recently in the
very
> stimulating (I am not being sarcastic) post-Mt. Laurel exchanges. Not
least
> because silence in discussion from those who are considering their view or
have
> limited time to contribute on the e-mails should not be equated with
> "consensus".

Agreed.

Cheers,

Mark.

----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little (mark@arjuna.com)
Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
Phone +44 191 2064538
Fax   +44 191 2064203