We'd like to have a predictable way of making decisions so that we are not blocked on picking vim over emacs. I mean solution A over solution B.
This is the Red Hat's framework for making open, transparent and democratic decisions in organizations.
We can use it for making large-scale decisions which affect multiple stakeholders and where implementation would take a considerable effort. Although that's not what we need here, we need to be able to make quick democratic decisions within one sprint.
I am amazed that the framework champions these type of questions and suggestions which can help us decide:
- Whose problem are we trying to solve?
- Who else could be impacted?
- Who has solved a similar problem?
- Who is likely to disagree, dissent, reject, or opt out? Who else may care?
- Gather input from internal customers and those who you will need help from (surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc.)
- Remain open to new information and perspectives
- Consider peer-to-peer feedback and communication options in addition to formal channels
- How will we monitor mailing lists and other feedback channels after the launch?
- How willing are we to make revisions based on feedback?
- What's a reasonable window of time for additional input and refinement?
- Did we overlook something important? How do we address it?
Decisions in FESCo are the daily bread so we can get an inspiration here. They have a well-thought voting mechanism:
One week for FESCo members to vote
-1. After the period accept if 3
+1s were received without a negative vote and vice versa.
Immediately accept or reject when getting 7 votes of the same type.
After a week, discuss the topic and decide.
This also sounds like a too complicated solution for us although I like the aspect of: discuss when unsure, accept/reject in agreement.
Simple and clear: members cast votes on meetings :) just like we do with grooming.
Interesting (and biased) blog post which describes in detail the process of voting in non-profit organizations.
A thorough and well-explained comparison between types of organization and the decision making process followed by a fascinating read about the Teal decision making.
Funnily enough, the advice the article is giving is contrary to my current proposal ('duh). They advise for the decision maker to make a call based on research, advices and being the subject matter expert. I instead suggested to have a consensus on a decision. The argument from the article is that reaching consensus is too expensive time-wise and resource-wise. I'd still try what I propose and reevaluate what's the most optimal process for us after a period of time.
We can definitely still learn from the article so I strongly suggest reading it.
Another fascinating process to make decisions with a clear process how to reach decisions.
CKI team uses the Request For Comments mechanism to formally propose a change so the team can provide feedback without requiring eventual consensus.
A new way of voting proposal created by a Czech mathematician which enables people to cast +2 and -1 votes. The pitch is that it would eliminate "the bad guys" getting to parliament.
Use the Consent Decision Making process since it leaves plenty of room for a discussion and addressing objections.
The owner of a topic is empowered to make a decision while being supported by the team.
If we are still unable to make a decision, we can use a voting mechanism (e.g. the Democracy 2.1 scheme).
Reevaluate after a few sprints pass.