Hi Michael, On Jun 26, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Michael Raskin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> that things can be improved without fracturing the already-small group. > > It looks like the main project will be conservative enough to be simple > to pull... Are you basing this assessment only on the git situation over the last 6 days, or do you consider the project pre-git to be fairly conservative? > A small fork will probably only change things that bother > someone. Overall, this makes believable that the fork will be able to > pull all changes from the remaining project, and the old part will be > able to pick any changes from the fork that it agrees with. > > I think that all arguments that explain why this exchange will not be > feasible should be mentioned - this can both uncover different values > and help to motivate people on keeping the community less split. > >> a) Those who have concerns need to explicitly bring them up in a way >> aimed toward fixing the problem while taking into account the reasons it >> happened in the first place, rather than trying to place blame. Particularly >> important here is that people recognize that any change will have a cost and >> that different people in the project will have different opinions on the >> relative weighting of the costs and benefits. > > Unfortunately, after the history with parallel builds I have no idea > what happens. I cannot comprehend what values/fears lead to promoting > what finally got committed. > How long ago was that discussion? I don't remember it at all and I've been hanging around nix-dev for around two years now. Maybe things are different now? In any case, I'm not sure one unreasonable outcome should mean that the entire system is irredeemable. >> b) Those who propose alternatives need to be willing to step up and do >> the work necessary to implement those alternatives themselves. For example, >> if you think too many emails to the list get dropped with no response, you >> need to be willing to respond to as many of the emails as possible. > > I think it is a bad example - many emails going unreplied are a piece of > evidence that we need not to discuss every step. > > So people who say that many ignored email are bad are those very people > who say that we don't have to have to reply to everything. Maybe just > try everything and simply keep all unproblematic changes. My personal > pet grudge about gnutls upstream says that probably everything less > destructive than GNU TLS update is not too problematic unless someone > explicitly complains. > Well, it was just an example. My point was merely that it's not enough to point out a problem, whenever possible you should point out solutions and be willing to do the legwork necessary to implement them. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
