Meta-procedures

Procedures may be useful, but what procedures do we need? This is where what I call meta-procedures are for. How do you define a new procedure, how do you change one, how can you drop one? This must be some sort of community process.

In many organizations the meta-procedure would be: procedures are changed by your boss(es). Needless to say that this is not very motivating. That's why we have something like this:

• if you're not OK with a procedure: speak up.
• if there is consensus that you are right, then we can start a discussion on how to change the procedure
• normally, and while the procedure is not changed: comply (even if you disagree)

You can elaborate on each point (like: what is consensus? who will have the last word, etc), but the idea is clear: we use an established procedure until we decide, as a group, to change it. Also, if you are uncomfortable with a procedure, then discuss it. Chances are that either everyone has the same problem, or that others can enlighten you on the true reason for the procedure. In no case just spoil your and others' mood without any chance for them to plea their cause.

Can meta-procedures be changed? Sure. I can imagine that as your team grows you may want to break with the tradition because upscaling simply requires other decision making processes. Going from closed-source to Open Source may induce something like that, too.