I'm dyslexic. My spelling is a stochastic process. ;)
On 9 May 2013 17:07, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > "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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 9 May 2013 03:59, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> 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 > -- NS
