couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Fri, 10 May 2013 18:47:28 GMT
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 <bchesneau@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 <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 10 May 2013 09:39, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@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


Mime
View raw message