"If by "go back to a more natural process" you mean "go back to the broken permission culture we had for the last three years where people were so intimidated by the project leads that they gave up bothering to contribute" then no. A thousand times no."
Not a thousand, but a million times. Many things have been delayed, or abandoned, due to inaction from developers, and I definitely include myself in that. If I take a week or two's vacation, I *expect* things to have changed in CouchDB without me, that's healthy. I trust that enough people are involved in any change that nothing too egregious can happen. I do not want to return to the stagnation of the too-recent past. I'm jazzed that someone said Sisyphean and amused that the same person made a principal/principle error. Language is fun. B. On 9 May 2013 17:00, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > On 9 May 2013 03:59, Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> However, to restate my position, DISCUSS had a suggestion to me that >> something >> warranted discussion. Your recent threads on workflow all were great. We >> should >> circle back and conclude them. When something warrants good discussion, >> it's >> worthwhile to get as much input as we can, and thus it suggests a longer >> window >> would be appropriate to me. >> > > Totally agreed! > > I think if anybody had attempted to use lazy consensus on that thread, they > would have been met with a swift objection. So, in many cases, it's a > judgement call. But I think you can be sure that mistakes will be corrected > for. > > Also, it's important for us all to remember that everything is reversible > If something doesn't work, or some change gets committed that breaks > CouchDB, we just revert it, or change things back to how they were. > >> It sounds to me like you've been caught off-guard because a few decisions >> > have been made and you didn't have time to contribute. I would suggest >> two >> > things. 1) Set up email filters so that DISCUSS, VOTE, NOTICE threads get >> > priority in your inbox. 2) Come up with a list of things you think we >> > should not leave to lazy consensus. >> >> Sounds like we need a well-understood set of these. >> >> If we can just enumerate them all I'd be happy to clean it up and make >> a definitions file. >> >> Noah, is this included in your idea of bylaws, or is this a separate >> document? >> > > Hmm. I guess it would be good to standardise them. Not sure you'd want to > make them a requirement. But perhaps just include them as suggestions. LIke > a set of best practices. Totally open to possibilities here! > > -- > NS
