Benoit, Please produce a draft of the by-laws you would like to see.
Thanks, On 10 May 2013 19:30, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm starting to think you don't read me carefully enough. > > I don't care about giving any evidence. The topic is about giving more > time to the discussion. The principle of using *by default* lazy > consensus is what I consider an abuse. I explained it why third time > in that thread. And already did it before that mail. But you refuse to > take my arguments in consideration keeping to ask me to show you how > thing turned out to be wrong. Which is not the topic. > > The problem by using lazily consensus over a shot time is that you > don't let people think about it much. Which wouldn't be a problem if > there was an intense communication between people. But this isn't the > case today. Some ideas are still coming from nowhere without > preparation. Don't get me wrong I don't say that these ideas are bad > or that there wasn't any thinking behind them. No the problem is you > expect that people are able to answer it in 72 h or so. your time. > Which don't let sometime the time to think much about it and give > your opinion or possible changes to it. Sometimes you really want to > tell a thing but finally can't do it because of timing issues. > (Sometimes yes, you 3 days are really short). Maybe it could be just > by saying it (like "hey I really want to answer but i don't have the > time") which I think could work. But I clearly think that in that case > just giving more time or simply not using lazy consensus could just > work. This is why I propose to adapt the time asked for a lazy > consensus depending on the context, ie. not using 72 h by convenience. > The delays proposed were just some suggestions. > > To be clear, I strongly disagree to use the lazy consensus as *the > default* way to take decisions. The apache way considers it as an > important and main way to build (some kind of) consensus. But main != > default . It is also saying that we should try to build a consensus > first. But not it is not saying that *lazy* consensus must be used by > *default*. By culture I don't like anything that is lazy by default > but I can accept its use. > > All the rest is out of topic. Though the thing wasn't a question of > ego. You missed the point. The problem was the lack of communication. > But this is out of topic and I won't answer to that here. > > To make it more clear since you asked it. This discussion is about > discussing the use of the lazy consensus *by default* and for me it > should be just an option, not something use for anything. It all > depends on the context. And in any case think more about the delay you > give depending on the importance of the decision or the urgency. > > To say it another way: this discussion is about the proposed policy to > use the lazy consensus *by default*. I hope it's clear now. And this > discussion is perfectly legal imo. > > Voila. > > - benoit > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10 May 2013 09:39, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Though I failed in this bad (imo) habit we took recently to > >> propose decisions before discussing the foundations of this > >> discussion. > > > > > > Not everything needs to be discussed. > > > > > >> All I wanted is discussing what I considered an abuse and > >> make some proposals. > >> > > > > Sure. I've invited you to make your proposals. I really hope you do! > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > I am asking you to provide specific examples. We can't talk about this > > meaningfully with them. > > > > Not only the problem is that some proposed threads didn't have > >> discussions at all > > > > > > Decision making does not require discussion. Sometimes discussion is > good. > > Sometimes it is needless. > > > > > >> either purely or violently objected or simply ignored > > > > > > Third time you say this without any evidence. Please provide evidence. > > > > > >> Worst case an idea/code from an ignored thread came 1 year or > >> 2 year after is presented as a new thing. > >> > > > > Why is that a bad thing? Stuff gets recycled. I'm grateful that things > are > > picked up eventually.(Unless your problem is with the credit. Which I > don't > > give two shits about. That's some meaningless ego thing.) > > > > > >> The problem is not to force decisions (yes I call it forcing) by using > >> lazy consensus without prior discussions > > > > > > One of three things must be the case: > > > > 1) You don't understand how lazy consensus works, and so you perceive it > > as a way to force through decisions without discussion. > > > > 2) You understand how lazy consensus works, but you disagree with it on > > principal, because you believe _all decisions_ require discussion. > (Please > > note how broad the category of "all" is in this context.) > > > > 3) You understand how lazy consensus works, and can see it has useful > > application, but you believe that somebody on this project used lazy > > consensus to ram through a decision which should have been handled with a > > discussion. > > > > Please clarify which one of these is the case, and if it is 3, please > > provide a reference to the thread where you believe this happened. > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > Agree. It would be good if we got better at this. > > > > 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. > >> > > > > Then I think you must misunderstand what "bureaucratic" means. > > > > Two possible definitions: > > > > 1) Making it harder for people to do things by imposing rules, and > policy, > > adding additional steps you must go through to get anything done. > > > > 2) Making it easier for people to do things by simplifying rules, and > > streamlining policy, and removing steps you must go through to get > anything > > done. > > > > Most people would say "bureaucratic" means 1. And I think most people > would > > say that imposing the requirement of discussion, followed by a 1 month > wait > > period before _any_ decision can be made qualifies. And I think most > people > > would say that lazy consensus is more along the lines of 2. > > > > And this discussion make me think that my next proposal to go to a RTC > >> policy [1] will have the same kind of reaction. > > > > > > I expect so. We have version control for a reason. And from what I have > > seen across the rest of the foundation, RTC is imposed by sclerotic > > projects paralysed by their fear. > > > > I am open to having this conversation, but I am requesting that you make > > things more concrete. > > > > Specifically: > > > > 1) Provided references for your statements about "certain" threads where > > this abuse is happening. > > > > 2) Draft a set of by-laws that we can debate. > > > > -- > > NS > -- NS
