I disagree that there is a need to define a "rule" in this case. Rules are useful to govern a series of recurrent and similar behaviors from several different individuals. Here this rule would be an attempt to govern the consequences of the behavior of a single person. In this case, the solution for you, as Scott as very well articulated, would be to slow down and try to avoid engaging other community members in long discussions.
Jacopo On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jacques Le Roux < [email protected]> wrote: > If people see a possible issue or are in doubt with a proposition, I > propose they quickly put a -1 as they would put a +1 on the contrary. > It would not a be vote, but then we would know that there is a kind of > disagreement, but not yet time to explain it clearly. > And we would know we need to wait a bit more than normally and especially > ask the persons who are concerned why they are. > Then we would wait their answers in a reasonable delay. By convention this > would be 3 days. > > I propose this rule to be written in a set of OFBiz specific rules which > AFAIK are still to be written. > So this would be the first and we would create a prominent wiki page for > that. > > I think that by written OFBiz specific rules in a wiki page it will > clarify the situations in most cases. We would of course add new OFBiz > specific rules when a new case would be crossed. > > What do you think? Of course, here again lazy consensus apply > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus but you might > already use the proposition above... > > Jacques > > Le 24/09/2016 à 23:39, Scott Gray a écrit : > >> - I think you rely on lazy consensus too much. Not many contributors have >> as much time as you to give to the project and formulating an argument >> against something (and then continuing the discussion) can take up a lot >> of >> time and energy. In my experience people are generally very quick to >> agree >> to good ideas (because it takes no effort other than to reply +1) so if >> you >> get*no* responses then you should IMO take pause before pushing ahead. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> > >
