On 4/17/19 7:24 PM, Chloe Kudryavtsev wrote:
> On 4/15/2019 11:23 AM, Drew DeVault wrote:
>> There is a general sense of dissatisfaction with the governance proposal
>> under discussion. It's too big and makes a lot of changes at once.
> The issue with the dissatisfaction is that it reduces the odds of
> passing it through.
> If a proposal that fixes all the issues does not pass through, it fixes
> no issues.
> This is the other end of the spectrum.
> It is simple to make a proposal that passes, but actually fixes nothing.
> However, if a proposal that fixes nothing passes, nothing was fixed.
> These two scenarios are effectively identical.
There is a third possibility that's worse than those two: a proposal
that fixes a large number of issues passes, but is generally not
accepted by the community because they aren't comfortable with it. It
becomes official, but no one respects or abides by it, and you
effectively end up with no governance model at all, and a lot of
confusion and disruption to the project.
I can't say how likely that is to happen here, but it is definitely a
common risk when considering such substantial changes. So, it's worth
taking the time to carefully consider changes, make them incrementally,
and ensure that the currently active governance body always leads
changes to the governance model. Trust takes time.
Received on Thu Apr 18 2019 - 18:07:37 UTC