incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <>
Subject Re: Veto Early
Date Sun, 10 Nov 2002 01:37:18 GMT
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 08:11:22PM -0500, Ben Hyde wrote:
> I don't know.  Each member of the community plays his 'negativity' 
> cards as he pleases.  They are pretty obnoxious cards.  Inviting people 
> to go negative early and often doesn't sound healthy.  Clearly there is 
> something worth saying near here though.
> Player A might be a very low intensity player of high expertise, he 
> reads his dev@ mail only once every one or two weeks - in that case his 
> veto might arive very late in the unfolding of some proposal but his 
> high level of expertise would mean it was highly respected.  A good 
> example of this is edits I've gone negative about only while proof 
> reading the cvs@ mail.
> Player B might prefer to remain civil and adopt a curious playful 
> attitude so the conversation remains cheerful and constructive until it 
> becomes obvious that something he feels extremely strongly about is 
> beginning to look unavoidable; only then he might decide to escalate to 
> a veto.
> Player C might be just like player B except rather than veto he might 
> choose to escalate only to a high level of debate; remaining optimistic 
> that will be enough to slow the proposal down until the discussion has 
> had a chance to mature more.
> Player D might be like B and C but be extremely reluctant to ever use 
> his negativity cards because he considers them too corrosive to the 
> long-term health of the game.  He might never veto.
> I think what your really saying is that it's way 
> abrasive/inconvenient/whatever when players show up late in the game 
> and then escalate rapidly with high negativity - something that 
> communicates that.. I can agree with.

Well said. I find myself in a few of the above scenarios from time to
time. :)

Negative votes (aka vetos) do not have to connote a negative attitude.
Communication is top priority, and stating one's intentions early can save
unnecessarily negative situations later. The HTTPD Project Guidelines[1]
(not sure if this is an official document or just something that has
withstood CVS commit without change) states:

"Voters intending to veto an action item should make their opinions
known to the group immediately, so that the problem can be remedied as
early as possible."

I think that is a much better way of stating it than I did above. :)



View raw message