On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Peter Rabbitson <ribasu...@cpan.org> wrote:
> On 04/30/2015 11:23 PM, David Golden wrote: > >> I'll accept his statement that his way of expressing his point of view is >> innocent rather than malicious. >> > > It really does not matter to me whether my expression is seen as > malicious. What is of paramount and exclusive importance to me is that my > message and position are: > - unambiguously put within a public record > - not being coopted > Given your other message about the definition of the word "content", I think we've achieved clarity and the reason for the misunderstanding is clear. It nonetheless implies (a) that few obstacles remain >> > > I am claiming exactly this. A hastily put together list of 5 points, > without a hint of a mechanism of adding new points *is* for all intents and > purposes "few obstacles remain". > They are not small obstacles. And, via this list, we do have a governance mechanism for additional criteria. What I would oppose, however, is an unbounded sequence of new obstacles introduced after all prior obstacles are overcome (without new evidence or concerns coming to light), as I don't think that's fair to Chad (or any developer). That's a passive-aggressive way of saying "no", which isn't good governance. Thus, I asked people to come up with -- in advance -- the list of criteria that would satisfy them. > > I maintain that no one cares *nearly enough*. I can elaborate on this on > further request, though I do not consider doing so productive. > > ... and what I think makes for a constructive conversation about code. >> > > The conversation is *not* about a spherical hunk of code in a vacuum. > Deliberately avoiding discussion of the goals and personalities driving > towards these goals is what put is in this mess in the first place. > Instead of a "you don't care, so I quit" message (i.e. virtually rather than physically walking out of the room in protest), I'd have preferred one or more of these sorts of contributions: * "hey, given the changes in the code base, I'm not going to review anything until it's settled down more" * "hey, in light of X, Y, Z new facts, here are some additional things I'd like to see on the punch list, does anyone else agree?" * "hey, in light of the CPAN river conversation, I think others might agree with me now that the risks of change are too high. Does anyone want to reconsider their decision to go forward with Test::Builder instead of a Test::Builder2 approach?" To the last point, in hindsight, I wish we'd had that discussion first at the hackathon as I think it might have influenced the others. Mea culpa. Or possibly, we wouldn't have gotten there without the early warm discussions as warm-ups. No way to know and we can't do it over, so we'll just have to muddle forward. David -- David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC: @xdg
