From owner-freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Wed Jan 22 09:05:30 1997 Return-Path: Delivered-To: proff@suburbia.net Received: (qmail 7399 invoked from network); 22 Jan 1997 09:05:21 -0000 Received: from mail.webspan.net (206.154.70.7) by suburbia.net with SMTP; 22 Jan 1997 09:05:21 -0000 Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.18]) by mail.webspan.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA22296; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 04:00:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA22550; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 00:25:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA22415 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 00:20:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ajax.wcs.uq.edu.au (ajax.wcs.uq.edu.au [130.102.222.4]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA22410 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 00:20:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gdr@localhost) by ajax.wcs.uq.edu.au (8.6.8/8.6.6) id SAA11281; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:18:43 +1000 From: Gary Roberts Message-Id: <199701220818.SAA11281@ajax.wcs.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:18:42 +1000 (EST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <1045.853896142@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Jan 21, 97 05:22:22 pm Organisation: The University of Queensland Phone: +617 3844 0400 Reply-To: gdr@wcs.uq.edu.au X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk

Jordan K. Hubbard writes:

But that doesn't even raise the biggest issue, which is:

...

Freddy Kruger (Kruger@ElmStreet.org) has submitted the following policy topic for discussion:

...

FreeBSD should move from a.out to ELF.

---

[ ... various amounts of discussion for 5 days ... ]

Freddy raises the issue and 10 people vote on it, 7 feeling ELF-ish enough that the motion "passes."

Now what? We've got this as a supposed piece of "FreeBSD Policy" now and users will surely expect it to be implemented or there wouldn't be ...

Actually, I think you'll find he was proposing a two stage process where the above example only allows a further vote to be taken as to whether or not it should become `policy'. This second stage is where you spend your vote tokens if you want to stop something passing. You are really alluding to the possibility of things `passing' due to apathy of the vast majority. That could be easily fixed. I imaging that people with `vote tokens' have them because they are registered as `adherents' to the FreeBSD religion. The Votebot could send each adherent a re-registration slip, say every three months. No reply means you are automatically removed from the adherents list and your voting rights disappear. You can easily re-instate yourself at any time and your previous vote tokens (if any) are then restored. In this way you trim out people who have lost the religion. At the first stage of voting, a decision to have a real vote on a policy change will *only* be made if (a) a significant fraction of adherents take part in the vote AND (b) there is a majority of `yes' over `no'. That way, if there is general apathy, the thing dies. At the second `real vote' stage, you must then decide whether to spend your vote tokens. Once again, things `pass' only if a quorum is involved and there is a majority of `yes' over `no' votes. The required quorum could be quite different for the first and second stages of voting. For example, the quorum to decide whether or not to put things to a vote could be set at say 20% which would not stifle the process but the quorum to actually change policy could be say 40 - 50% to make sure that a vocal minority couldn't `roll' the silent majority. Terry did offer to implement the voting system. Why not take him up on his offer with the first question to be decided being:- Q. Should changes in FreeBSD policy be made by an auto-voting system? and if you get a `yes' on that then the second could be:- Q. Does the Emperor have some clothes after all?? :-). Seriously, it might be useful to have the user community vote on important policy issues (like a.out versus ELF) knowing that there is really no binding commitment on volunteers to do anything if it doesn't suit the volunteers. I'm sure everyone really does understand and accept that. It would also be useful to kill off discussion that has exceeded its use-by date (like this thread) by putting it to a vote and then getting on with more useful things. All the above is, of course, IMHO. Cheers, -- Gary Roberts (gdr@wcs.uq.edu.au) (Ph +617 3844 0400 Fax +617 3844 0444) 4th Floor, South Bank House, 234 Grey St, South Bank QLD 4101 Australia.