Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: Drafting the Core Team Governance Document
- opinion seeking
- opinion giving
- information seeking
- information giving
- consensus testing How well are we doing with the current process? Where there are problems, we should try to make the desired activity technically easy.
Initiating is currently iffy. It's open, because anybody can post. But it's not well-advertised, which may be fine because it self-qualifies the initiators. It's not easy to do well because we don't have a template for a good TIP.
Opinion-seeking - has historically been a problem - there are many unanswered forum questions. I think a few TIPs represent premature opinion-seeking.
opinion-giving seems to be happening fairly well - in particular, we have a pretty high signal-to-noise ratio.
information seeking and giving?
Clarifying. Even though the responses represent clarification, we're not getting a filtering because there's no way to condense the responses into a single right answer - you have to read everything and process it. So we do most of the work of clarifying and then sort of drop it. The original TIP rules call for the proposer to summarize the objections after a veto, which we haven't really done. We need to make this easier - ie, whoever is supposed to write a summary needs to know, needs to see what a good summary looks like; the summary needs to be prominent.
Elaborating, summarizing - same remarks as for clarifying
Consensus testing. I think the forum makes this hard, because: it's asynchronous, so someone can agree with a point while someone else is abandoning it or misunderstanding it. Conversations can get too prolonged. The collective opinion of the group of decision-makers is too hard to see. We also have the problem that we have no real means to test the consensus of any broader body than the OCT.