Randall, I think I understand your argument. Would it be true to say that you think that "DISCUSS" threads should be reserved for actual discussion, and that we need a new tag for the threads which give notice about lazy consensus?
On 10 May 2013 20:00, Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'll hop in to repeat my observation one more time and offer evidence of > the behavior which caused me to empathize with Benoit. > > In the recent email about old releases tagged [DISCUSS] Noah said: > > "If nobody objects in 72 hours, I will assume lazy consensus and proceed." > > I like lazy consensus and consider it rolling and ubiquitous in the actions > of committers and in play even as we make decisions with zero discussion. > We act because we *believe* we would have consensus. In every case where > there is no formal discussion I believe I am representing my best guess at > what *would be* explicit consensus if it were discussed. This is my > understanding of lazy consensus but I'm happy to be corrected. > > However, 72 hours seems antithetical to discussion. If you call for > discussion because you want feedback, please give some time, especially > when it's not urgent. I'm not sure it is necessary to say exactly how long. > > That's a concrete recommendation from me. I hope that is constructive and > can help resolve this discussion. > On May 10, 2013 11:50 AM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > > It's also perfectly fine to respond saying "woah there cowboy, we need to > > discuss this first." > > > > > > On 10 May 2013 19:47, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Maybe what is missing from this is that lazy consensus leads to things > > > that can never every be changed again. It is just a tool to keep a > > > distributed team going. If we do a thing and it gets lazy consesus’d > > > and implemented and even shipped, we can still *at any time* realise > > > it was a mistake, make a course correction or revert and move on. > > > > > > Jan > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 2013, at 19:30 , Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> > 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 <nsla...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> On 10 May 2013 09:39, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> 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 > > > -- NS
