couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Fri, 10 May 2013 08:51:36 GMT
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Benoit Chesneau <> wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Noah Slater <> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you find offensive in my email.
>> I was pointing out that your understanding of lazy consensus is incorrect.
>> And the arguments you make from that misunderstanding are similarly
>> incorrect.
>> You came close to making a concrete proposal, but fell slightly short of
>> the mark. Things like this, for instance: "So I think that something tagged
>> [DISCUSS] should at least let 2 weeks or better 1 month to expect a
>> response and make any assumption." This is too vague to really talk about.
>> What is "something tagged as [DISCUSS]"? What gets tagged with "[DISCUSS]"?
>> Is it two weeks, or one month? There are many things that need clarifying
>> before we can move forward productively.
>> When I commented on some of the inaccuracies in your email, you started to
>> rail against me. Coming up with things like suggesting that people have
>> ignored objections, or that people are "abusing" the process, or that
>> things are "borderline". But you have not actually given any concrete
>> examples. So, again, it is practically impossible to have a discussion.
> The purpose of this discuss thread was discussing hence the tag
> [DISCUSS]. Though I failed in this bad (imo) habit we took recently to
> propose decisions before discussing the foundations of this
> discussion. All I wanted is discussing what I considered an abuse and
> make some proposals.  It should have been more clear.


> Anyway If you didn't found it clear or wanted it more precise then
> it's all that should have been asked.
> 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. And sorry but you have no authority on my mind to
> define what *I* call an abuse.
>> I am not suggesting that we don't discuss things, or that some thing
>> shouldn't be discussed. I am saying that you do not need to "give the whole
>> community a set of options" before you make any sort of decision. That is
>> the surest way I can think of to make sure that no decisions ever get made,
>> and that CouchDB continues to grow more and more sclerotic.
>> The problem the last few years is actually more like this: a smart,
>> passionate user comes along with an idea that they believe will benefit the
>> project. When they suggest it, they are met with a bunch of objections. But
>> they are objections in the form of "I don't like this idea because it's not
>> exactly like how I would do it." Which wouldn't be so bad, if those people
>> actually went ahead and did anything. But they don't. So what this forms is
>> a big wall of stop energy that nothing ever gets passed.
> Not only the problem is that some proposed threads didn't have
> discussions at all, either purely or violently objected or simply
> ignored. Worst case an idea/code from an ignored thread came 1 year or
> 2 year after is  presented as a new thing.
> The problem is not to force decisions (yes I call it forcing) by using
> lazy consensus without prior discussions to make an idea happen, the
> problem is more like: 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. That and taking ideas in consideration more rapidly. But that has
> nothing with lazy consensus. Not everything require to take decisions,
> some are just questions to validate a point or a concept related to
> the project or an idea someone can have.
>> I see hints of this in your response. It sounds like you're saying that
>> before we do anything, we have to discuss it, and everybody needs a chance
>> to review the options, and then we can move forward. But to me, that sounds
>> a big sticking pile of bureaucratic crap that we're heaping on to the
>> project because we're too afraid of change or loss of control.
> 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.
> And this discussion make me think that my next proposal to go to a RTC
> policy [1] will have the same kind of reaction. But this is another
> topic,.
> [1]

View raw message