fr33domlover commented 2023年02月01日 20:38:14 +01:00

So far, the decision-making guide is a brief very simplified one.

This PR:

• Improves the simplified guide
• Adds a full detailed version of the decision-making process, to help everyone make non-trivial decisions together, and so that even if I disappear, the project has the tools to continue, learn, evolve, flourish
• Tweaks the table in AGREEMENTS.md based on earlier feedback

Clarification: This PR isn't making a new agreement/decision, it's mostly just expanding the decision-making guide, and we can continue to try the guide in Forgejo and see how it goes and improve it as needed. Or even throw it away entirely if it really doesn't work.

It's not a command forcing you to make decisions in a certain way. It's a helpful resources giving you a way to make decisions together. If you know what you're doing and you don't need a guide, that's fine.

The Request

If you have limited time to read the guide:

Can you skim through it and see if there's anything that stands out, that bothers/concerns you or that you disagree with? And comment if yes. Otherwise, do you trust me and willing that we try the guide in Forgejo (despite not thoroughly reading it) and see how it goes, and let it improve via ongoing feedback, and make an official community approval at a later time? (Worst case, if it turns out to be garbage, we can delete it)

If you don't have time to read the guide:

Do you trust me and willing that we try the guide in Forgejo (despite not reading the very long detailed sections that this PR adds) and see how it goes, and let it improve via ongoing feedback, and make an official community approval at a later time? (Worst case, if it turns out to be garbage, we can delete it)

If you have time to thoroughly read the guide:

Can you go through it and review / give feedback? Including questions if there's anything there that's unclear or confusing.

If you don't have enough trust in me to answer yes to the questions above, that's fine and please don't hesitate to say so <3 I know it's hard to trust a stranger landing some huge document out of nowhere. We'll figure out a pathway to togetherness. Even if it means simply closing this PR without merging anything.

So far, the decision-making guide is a brief very simplified one. This PR: - Improves the simplified guide - Adds a full detailed version of the decision-making process, to help everyone make non-trivial decisions together, and so that even if I disappear, the project has the tools to continue, learn, evolve, flourish - Tweaks the table in AGREEMENTS.md based on earlier feedback Clarification: This PR isn't making a new agreement/decision, it's mostly just expanding the decision-making guide, and we can continue to try the guide in Forgejo and see how it goes and improve it as needed. Or even throw it away entirely if it really doesn't work. It's not a command forcing you to make decisions in a certain way. It's a helpful resources giving you a way to make decisions together. If you know what you're doing and you don't need a guide, that's fine. # The Request If you have **limited time to read** the guide: Can you **skim** through it and see if there's anything that stands out, that **bothers/concerns** you or that you disagree with? And comment if yes. Otherwise, do you trust me and **willing that we try the guide in Forgejo** (despite not thoroughly reading it) and see how it goes, and let it improve via ongoing feedback, and make an official community approval at a later time? (Worst case, if it turns out to be garbage, we can delete it) If you **don't have time to read** the guide: Do you trust me and **willing that we try the guide in Forgejo** (despite not reading the very long detailed sections that this PR adds) and see how it goes, and let it improve via ongoing feedback, and make an official community approval at a later time? (Worst case, if it turns out to be garbage, we can delete it) If you **have time to thoroughly read** the guide: Can you go through it and review / give feedback? Including *questions* if there's anything there that's unclear or confusing. If you don't have enough trust in me to answer yes to the questions above, that's fine and please don't hesitate to say so <3 I know it's hard to trust a stranger landing some huge document out of nowhere. We'll figure out a pathway to togetherness. Even if it means simply closing this PR without merging anything.

tallship commented 2023年02月24日 07:25:15 +01:00

Hunting down and trying to remain abreast of the ever evolving and continuous flurry of merge requests is more than I'm capable of dedicating time time towards, regardless of how I or others might otherwise feel about whatever it's is that is happening in what I'm going to call a vacuum here.

Therefore, I will again call for a process whereby what you're "Proposing" is sufficiently and transparently vetted and discussed, and available for review and comment, BEFORE commits are made for merge requests affecting Governance matters that may not be agreeable to the community that is heavily taxed, impacted, and distracted from their other prorities just to try and follow slong with whatever you're attempting to enact.

suffice it to say, unless you cease from this methodology, I and many others will dissent.

The right way to do this is to publish in an accessible medium where others can participate in the process of development, or find that you're efforts to envy policy via fiat by virtue of merges categorically rejected - and we will reject anything you try to inject into the canon that is not easily peer reviewed, discussed, and resolved, prior to ANY merges by current of the community.

Whether you are on the right track or not philosophically, you're going sboutt this the wrong way - and unless you cease with this method, it will not go well. I promise you this.

The most regrettable thing, is that I'm an enthusiastic supporter of what you're trying to achieve, likely in agreement with much/most of what you propose, but you're going about this all wrong.

Hunting down and trying to remain abreast of the ever evolving and continuous flurry of merge requests is more than I'm capable of dedicating time time towards, regardless of how I or others might otherwise feel about whatever it's is that is happening in what I'm going to call a vacuum here. Therefore, I will again call for a process whereby what you're ***"Proposing"*** is sufficiently and transparently vetted and discussed, and available for review and comment, **BEFORE** commits are made for merge requests affecting Governance matters that may not be agreeable to the community that is heavily taxed, impacted, and distracted from their other prorities just to try and follow slong with whatever you're attempting to enact. suffice it to say, unless you cease from this methodology, I and many others will dissent. The right way to do this is to publish in an accessible medium where others can participate in the process of development, or find that you're efforts to envy policy via fiat by virtue of merges categorically rejected - and we will reject anything you try to **inject** into the canon that is not easily peer reviewed, discussed, and resolved, prior to ANY merges by current of the community. Whether you are on the right track or not philosophically, you're going sboutt this the wrong way - and unless you cease with this method, it will not go well. I promise you this. The most regrettable thing, is that I'm an enthusiastic supporter of what you're trying to achieve, likely in agreement with much/most of what you propose, but you're going about this all wrong.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月24日 19:46:37 +01:00

I side with @tallship here.

I have a life outside of Forgejo (yes, really!) and have a hard time with following up with everything. This PR was created three weeks ago and I have only learned about it once it was merged. Too late for remarks.

There's this anxiety now, that processes and understandings were agreed upon and I am not aware of them and might tapping into pitfalls I have no idea about. That's not a healthy relationship to an organisation I would love to contribute to.

I side with @tallship here. I have a life outside of Forgejo (yes, really!) and have a hard time with following up with everything. This PR was created three weeks ago and I have only learned about it once it was merged. Too late for remarks. There's this anxiety now, that processes and understandings were agreed upon and I am not aware of them and might tapping into pitfalls I have no idea about. That's not a healthy relationship to an organisation I would love to contribute to.

fsologureng commented 2023年02月24日 21:58:11 +01:00

I agree with both @tallship and @Ryuno-Ki, and even @dachary because the proposal as a whole is very good.

My main concern is that I understand this proposal to be self-contained, meaning that each of its parts is subject to the methodology itself to be approved (recursive if you prefer). So, for example, how are we to trust that everyone who might care or be affected by this decision is invited and included in a sense that gives legitimacy to the approval? You have communicated that the draft is ready for review, but where is the open and inclusive decision question posed? In the description you only talk about an edit to the existing documents, and in the chat you only say "at last the PR decision making guide is ready for review yay", which in my view is not an adequate invitation to participate in perhaps the most important meta-decision of the whole initiative.

I have made the same mistake before, so maybe first we need to decide what is the right way to make a call considered legitimate enough for good participation and involvement.

Same with the recommended waiting time for feedback, the idea is to wait only 2 weeks?
And concerns probably follow, for each person, point by point, paragraph by paragraph,... what is the rule to apply for this decision?

Maybe this guideline should be taken as it is, without the categorisation of global agreement, but to be implemented by experimenting how we go with its application. Otherwise, we should see the proposal as a fast track, where most of us will have to rely on you as the expert in decision making, but who does not apply the method itself to his major decision proposal.

I agree with both @tallship and @Ryuno-Ki, and even @dachary because the proposal as a whole is very good. My main concern is that I understand this proposal to be self-contained, meaning that each of its parts is subject to the methodology itself to be approved (recursive if you prefer). So, for example, how are we to trust that *everyone who might care or be affected by this decision is invited and included* in a sense that gives legitimacy to the approval? You have communicated that the draft is ready for review, but where is the [*open and inclusive decision question posed*](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/commit/b98be6c7b6e40d0a1e79aa79fa3be17e89923c24/DECISION-MAKING.md?display=source#L54)? In the description you only talk about an edit to the existing documents, and in the chat you only say ["at last the PR decision making guide is ready for review yay"](https://matrix.to/#/!qjPHwFPdxhpLkXMkyP:matrix.org/$Gi1w9E1k5zEjteyISEyc0mhW0X9SFH50e2Us2fDV1Is?via=matrix.org&via=envs.net&via=tchncs.de), which in my view is not an adequate invitation to participate in perhaps the most important meta-decision of the whole initiative. I have made the same mistake before, so maybe **first** we need to **decide** what is the right way to make a call considered legitimate enough for good participation and involvement. Same with the [recommended waiting time for feedback](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/commit/b98be6c7b6e40d0a1e79aa79fa3be17e89923c24/DECISION-MAKING.md?display=source#L64), the idea is to wait only 2 weeks? And concerns probably follow, for each person, point by point, paragraph by paragraph,... what is the rule to apply for this decision? Maybe this guideline should be taken as it is, without the categorisation of global agreement, but to be implemented by experimenting how we go with its application. Otherwise, we should see the proposal as a fast track, where most of us will have to rely on you as the expert in decision making, but who does not apply the method itself to his major decision proposal.

KaKi87 commented 2023年02月25日 13:05:56 +01:00

I will again call for a process whereby what you're "Proposing" is sufficiently and transparently vetted and discussed, and available for review and comment, BEFORE commits are made for merge requests

So, do you think that, in general, PRs should only be implementing previously discussed and approved issues ?

Because we didn't hear from you in #124, #131 and #132 on this matter, those were focused on source code indeed, but I think it's also relevant here.

I [...] have a hard time with following up with everything. This PR was created three weeks ago and I have only learned about it once it was merged.

Try using the watch feature.
It isn't merged, though.

> I will again call for a process whereby what you're "Proposing" is sufficiently and transparently vetted and discussed, and available for review and comment, BEFORE commits are made for merge requests So, do you think that, in general, PRs should only be implementing previously discussed and approved issues ? Because we didn't hear from you in #124, #131 and #132 on this matter, those were focused on source code indeed, but I think it's also relevant here. > I [...] have a hard time with following up with everything. This PR was created three weeks ago and I have only learned about it once it was merged. Try using the *[watch](/forgejo/meta/watchers)* feature. It isn't merged, though.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月25日 20:57:24 +01:00

Oh, I'm watching. My time on Codeberg is limited because I have to care for family members.

Oh, I'm watching. My time on Codeberg is limited because I have to care for family members.

fr33domlover commented 2023年02月27日 19:14:49 +01:00

@tallship, I hear your concern about governance changes being "landed" by a single person without the reasonable possibility of review.

@Ryuno-Ki, I hear your concern for your limited time and therefore the impact of a long decision-making guide being written, which would take a lot of time to read. And the anxiety about possible agreements being made without you being aware.

Here's a clarification about this PR and about governance stuff in general, which I'll also edit into the PR's description.

• The current (merged) version of the decision-making guide is a simplified form of a method called Convergent Facilitation, with bits from another methodology called Sociocracy
• That guide has been merged for a while, so that people can try it and we can learn and evolve the process if/as needed
• This PR just adds a full detailed version of the process, so that even if I disappear, there's a good basis to work with

Do you trust me enough to give this guide a chance?

If you don't have time to review the thing, I totally get it, I know it's long and I know it talks about stuff that might sound unfamiliar.

This guide doesn't have operational impacts, it doesn't make any operational agreements.

I can ask you "are you okay with us using Convergent Facilitation" but in order for you to answer that, you'd need to learn that process, read materials and practice, to able to tell whether using that process makes sense. I don't believe it's realistic to have everyone learn all the methodologies, just for us to be able to decide how we decide stuff.

Instead, I prepared a (hopefully) friendly guide specifically adapted for Forgejo, that we can try here in Forgejo and then we can see how it feels. And if the feedback says it's not working for us, then we can improve it. Or throw it away.

Perhaps I haven't done enough to gather consent for entrustment (i.e. for people trusting me to bring these tools in a safe manner into the project). This is precious feedback for me, for the future. But let's figure out the present first.

Questions

1. I edited the PR's description - can you read it? And after reading, are you opposed this PR and to the way it's presented?

2. If opposed - do you have an idea/proposal/request for how to proceed here?

@tallship, I hear your concern about governance changes being "landed" by a single person without the reasonable possibility of review. @Ryuno-Ki, I hear your concern for your limited time and therefore the impact of a long decision-making guide being written, which would take a lot of time to read. And the anxiety about possible agreements being made without you being aware. Here's a clarification about this PR and about governance stuff in general, which I'll also edit into the PR's description. - The current (merged) version of the decision-making guide is a simplified form of a method called Convergent Facilitation, with bits from another methodology called Sociocracy - That guide has been merged for a while, so that people can try it and we can learn and evolve the process if/as needed - This PR just adds a full detailed version of the process, so that even if I disappear, there's a good basis to work with Do you trust me enough to give this guide a chance? If you don't have time to review the thing, I totally get it, I know it's long and I know it talks about stuff that might sound unfamiliar. This guide doesn't have operational impacts, it doesn't make any operational agreements. I can ask you "are you okay with us using Convergent Facilitation" but in order for you to answer that, you'd need to learn that process, read materials and practice, to able to tell whether using that process makes sense. I don't believe it's realistic to have everyone learn all the methodologies, just for us to be able to decide how we decide stuff. Instead, I prepared a (hopefully) friendly guide *specifically adapted for Forgejo*, that we can *try here in Forgejo* and then we can see how it feels. And if the feedback says it's not working for us, then we can improve it. Or throw it away. Perhaps I haven't done enough to gather consent for entrustment (i.e. for people trusting me to bring these tools in a safe manner into the project). This is precious feedback for me, for the future. But let's figure out the present first. # Questions 1. I edited the PR's description - can you read it? And after reading, are you opposed this PR and to the way it's presented? 2. If opposed - do you have an idea/proposal/request for how to proceed here?

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月27日 19:46:03 +01:00

The following is my own opinion. If you feel to talk on one-on-one I'm happy to do so as well.

First of all: It's not my intention to trigger you emotionally. I'm aware that you are investing a lot of time and energy into this matter and act in good faith. Thank you for that.

My anxiety is - as mentioned - to run into pitfalls.

If you write

This guide doesn't have operational impacts, it doesn't make any operational agreements.

then my stress is relieved for a bit.

we can see how it feels. And if the feedback says it's not working for us, then we can improve it. Or throw it away.

makes it sound like kind of an experiment.
As in, it is okay if this turns out to be not working. It's not set in stone.

Do you have a specific form you would like to receive feedback?

Perhaps I haven't done enough to gather consent for entrustment (i.e. for people trusting me to bring these tools in a safe manner into the project).

If I were to organise feedback, I'd go through the TEAMS document and contact those people I haven't seen a reaction from on a proposal. To some degree I already noticed this on the chat.

I'm not opposed to this concrete PR. I'm worried about the velocity in which we add new documents to our repos. Especially if they appear to be important of some kind.

The following is my own opinion. If you feel to talk on one-on-one I'm happy to do so as well. First of all: It's not my intention to trigger you emotionally. I'm aware that you are investing a lot of time and energy into this matter and act in good faith. Thank you for that. My anxiety is - as mentioned - to run into pitfalls. If you write > This guide doesn't have operational impacts, it doesn't make any operational agreements. then my stress is relieved for a bit. > we can see how it feels. And if the feedback says it's not working for us, then we can improve it. Or throw it away. makes it sound like kind of an experiment. As in, it is okay if this turns out to be not working. It's not set in stone. Do you have a specific form you would like to receive feedback? > Perhaps I haven't done enough to gather consent for entrustment (i.e. for people trusting me to bring these tools in a safe manner into the project). If I were to organise feedback, I'd go through the TEAMS document and contact those people I haven't seen a reaction from on a proposal. To some degree I already noticed this on the chat. I'm not opposed to this concrete PR. I'm worried about the velocity in which we add new documents to our repos. Especially if they appear to be important of some kind.

fr33domlover commented 2023年03月02日 16:04:29 +01:00

• I added an intro paragraph to clarify the guide is a recommendation, not a rule you "must" follow
• I updated the table in AGREEMENTS.md to clarify this as well

I'm now going to merge this PR. We'll gather ongoing feedback as/if/when people use the guide.

From now on I'll more clearly gather approval/entrustment before I start working on such a detailed document, to make sure there's a sense of trust and togetherness.

- I added an intro paragraph to clarify the guide is a recommendation, not a rule you "must" follow - I updated the table in AGREEMENTS.md to clarify this as well I'm now going to merge this PR. We'll gather ongoing feedback as/if/when people use the guide. From now on I'll more clearly gather approval/entrustment before I start working on such a detailed document, to make sure there's a sense of trust and togetherness.

forgejo/meta

forgejo/meta