On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm not sure what you find offensive in my email. >> >> I was pointing out that your understanding of lazy consensus is incorrect. >> And the arguments you make from that misunderstanding are similarly >> incorrect. >> >> You came close to making a concrete proposal, but fell slightly short of >> the mark. Things like this, for instance: "So I think that something tagged >> [DISCUSS] should at least let 2 weeks or better 1 month to expect a >> response and make any assumption." This is too vague to really talk about. >> What is "something tagged as [DISCUSS]"? What gets tagged with "[DISCUSS]"? >> Is it two weeks, or one month? There are many things that need clarifying >> before we can move forward productively. >> >> When I commented on some of the inaccuracies in your email, you started to >> rail against me. Coming up with things like suggesting that people have >> ignored objections, or that people are "abusing" the process, or that >> things are "borderline". But you have not actually given any concrete >> examples. So, again, it is practically impossible to have a discussion. > > The purpose of this discuss thread was discussing hence the tag > [DISCUSS]. Though I failed in this bad (imo) habit we took recently to > propose decisions before discussing the foundations of this > discussion. All I wanted is discussing what I considered an abuse and > make some proposals. It should have been more clear.
s/failed/felt > > Anyway If you didn't found it clear or wanted it more precise then > it's all that should have been asked. > > Also I don't have to give concrete examples since the problem I > describe " use lazy-consensus all the time and only propose 72 hours > to react" is the abuse. You may disagree with that but this is what I > call an abuse. And sorry but you have no authority on my mind to > define what *I* call an abuse. > >> >> I am not suggesting that we don't discuss things, or that some thing >> shouldn't be discussed. I am saying that you do not need to "give the whole >> community a set of options" before you make any sort of decision. That is >> the surest way I can think of to make sure that no decisions ever get made, >> and that CouchDB continues to grow more and more sclerotic. >> >> The problem the last few years is actually more like this: a smart, >> passionate user comes along with an idea that they believe will benefit the >> project. When they suggest it, they are met with a bunch of objections. But >> they are objections in the form of "I don't like this idea because it's not >> exactly like how I would do it." Which wouldn't be so bad, if those people >> actually went ahead and did anything. But they don't. So what this forms is >> a big wall of stop energy that nothing ever gets passed. > > Not only the problem is that some proposed threads didn't have > discussions at all, either purely or violently objected or simply > ignored. Worst case an idea/code from an ignored thread came 1 year or > 2 year after is presented as a new thing. > > The problem is not to force decisions (yes I call it forcing) by using > lazy consensus without prior discussions to make an idea happen, the > problem is more like: working on taking all new ideas in a positive > manner, and being open even if the idea sounds stupid at first. Also > listening about differences. Something that we still have to work on > imo. That and taking ideas in consideration more rapidly. But that has > nothing with lazy consensus. Not everything require to take decisions, > some are just questions to validate a point or a concept related to > the project or an idea someone can have. > > >> >> I see hints of this in your response. It sounds like you're saying that >> before we do anything, we have to discuss it, and everybody needs a chance >> to review the options, and then we can move forward. But to me, that sounds >> a big sticking pile of bureaucratic crap that we're heaping on to the >> project because we're too afraid of change or loss of control. >> > > That exactly my thinking about the lazy concensus *by default*: a > buraucratic crap and a way to not share the control with the > community or make it harder to do it. > > And this discussion make me think that my next proposal to go to a RTC > policy [1] will have the same kind of reaction. But this is another > topic,. > > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit
