What would such a mechanism look like? What would its goals be?
-
-
Oh, just the usual matters of governance. Representativeness & proportionality, accountability, etc. Usual mix of quantitative mechanisms?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I would think the quantitative mechanisms would have to be weighted somehow by experience, etc, which gets us back to "core team decides"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Surely there are many ways of summing and weighting governance questions, many producing very different outcomes than that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @graydon_pub @Carols10cents and
Point is at moment governance structure has very sharp line between in & out, where out is strictly advisory, no defined powers.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @Carols10cents and
I suspect that over time & with increasing scale, that might be worth reconsidering. Many projects grow formal vote or veto mechanisms.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah I'm imagining "50% of v casually-involved people say no = veto" which doesn't seem great either, but that may not be what you mean
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
My point is as-written, Rust's consensus model grants a participant in process no defined say. Subteam-lead has final call.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's not all that's promised-- we claim to try to explore and consider all tradeoffs raised by anyone
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
That's kinda my point: consideration is strictly advisory. There's no defined amount of objection that would equal a definite no.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @graydon_pub @Carols10cents and
FWIW if there were a more defined path to joining a subteam, I think that would help
3:53 PM - 2 Aug 2017
from Ottawa - Gatineau
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.