[Nix-dev] Fwd: Improving the Developer Experience in the Nix Community

[Cillian de Róiste]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Bryce L Nordgren <bnordgren at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Bryce L Nordgren <bnordgren at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nix-dev] Improving the Developer Experience in the Nix
> Community
> To: 7c6f434c at mail.ru
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael Raskin <7c6f434c at mail.ru> wrote:
>>
>> It does look that currently it is unattainable as such on some
>> questions. Consensus is good when it is feasible, but with some amount
>> of differences it is too much to ask for.
>
>
> Consensus as the only operating rule excludes Nix from the workplace. Nearly
> all workplaces have nonnegotiable policies, and it's likely that these will
> not be compatible. So there must always be an adaptation layer between a
> more or less generic distribution and the specific policies on site. The
> adaption layer is bidirectional: the distribution should be prepared to
> accept and de-specialize contributions from any particular environment, just
> as each participant must be prepared to specialize the generic distribution
> to their needs.
>
> An important part of Consensus is recognizing when it doesn't apply.

The consensus process sounds very interesting to me. I can't think of
any particular cases which would infringe on a workplace policy
personally. If I understand correctly, the idea is that you vote
against (block) things you feel strongly should not happen, so it's
just the opposite of a normal voting process where you vote in favor
of a proposal. With the normal voting process a decision can be
accepted even if some people are strongly against it. With the
consensus process everybody doesn't have to agree or think that the
solution is the best possible one, it just needs to be the case that
nobody is strongly against it.

Whether someone has the right to vote with either system is difficult
to determine, and a single blocker is more powerful than a single
voter so that may make it tricky to apply. I can see why it makes
sense for members to be physically present at a meeting to work out
differences of opinion. I wouldn't rule it out as an optional decision
making process just yet though.