Re: [Gdbheads] Let's resolve this quickly

[Stan Shebs]

Bob Rossi wrote:

> > > Votes are public.  Should they be private?  I think they should be
> > > public; the decision is being made with the public's trust.
> > Private. As a result of various conversations with GCC SC people
> > over the past 5-6 years, I think it's better to have the SC
> > speaking with one voice. This shouldn't be like real-life politics,
> > where you have factions wired into a zero-sum game, and where
> > stabbing people in the back is just one more tactic (remember what
> > I said about trust?). Public GCC SC votes would tend to alter
> > the patch lobbying process as randoms start pitching their stuff to
> > particular SC members thought favorable, in the hopes of outflanking
> > maintainers.
>
> Could you please explain better why the votes should be private?
>
> Somehow I feel that making the votes private isn't necessary.
> You seem to be suggesting that if votes are public, other people on the
> SC will vote for their "best friend". Is that accurate?
>
> If that is your point, I don't think it is a good enough point to make
> the votes private. If I want to vote what my best friend votes, I just
> ask him what he voted, and then vote the same. The only difference is,
> the votes are held back from the community.
>
> If the votes were private, would they be made public at the time of the
> decision?
No; it would be a single answer, as if issued by a single person with
a multi-lobed brain. :-)

It could be made to work either way, but have you ever looked at
homeowners' boards or city councils? They very often have a "sunshine
policy" requiring public meetings, but it's a somewhat of a sham;
sooner or later they have to discuss somebody's raise or the like
that nobody wants to be done in public, and then they go into
"executive session". Or they'll have a "three person" rule, saying
that if three members are in the same place at the same time, it's
an official meeting that has to be publicized. It's like I couldn't
send a GDB-related email to both Jim and Klee.

The net effect is that the council/board/committee members have
to grandstand all the time in their public meetings; if they say
something wrong about somebody in public, it's a Big Deal, and so
they end up dancing around real issues.

We do things this way in real life situations, because long experience
in that real life tells us that the money and power involved are
invariably corrupting, and that we simply cannot trust people in those
situations. Thus my message about trust; although some distrust has
developed recently, I would like everybody to "take the pledge" to
trust each other when it comes to GDB. If we have that, which I think
is entirely possible, we can bypass a lot of complexity that would be
required by a more adversarial system.

Stan