Mailing-List: contact directory-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List"
 <directory-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Message-ID: <40EC1FA2.5060707@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:06:58 +0200
From: Stephen McConnell <mcconnell@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <directory-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Learning deescalation
References: <40EBCC22.8080000@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <40EBCC22.8080000@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Nicala:

Sorry mate - but you are honestly the last person to preach about 
deescalation.  Let it drop.

Stephen.


Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

> 
> In the thread "Web site ready - give it a try", there has been an 
> unneeded escalation of tension because an innocent question has turned 
> into a bikeshed argument. [1]
> 
> Keep in mind that others *will* ask questions like these the more the 
> project becomes known, and the project has to learn how to handle them 
> without making a fuzz out of them each time.
> 
> The suggestions I proposed may as well be wrong: the important thing is 
> not what the project decides but how it handles pressure. I hope that 
> it's now clear that learning to de-escalate a storm in a teacup is 
> important.
> 
> I'd suggest that everyone rereads the whole thread, and tries to see 
> where things started escalating and why. In particular take notice of 
> how different people react and which reactions escalate.
> 
> As a general guide, the best way not to escalate tension is through 
> silence. [2] For example, if at one point I was said "we have already 
> decided for this", but I still kept on bugging, simply not responding 
> would have made me desist.
> 
> Finally, as Noel said, voting should not be used to deescalate, as in 
> fact it does the opposite, and should generally be used only to ratify 
> important decisions of which there is already consensus, or when the 
> discussion has been long enough to warrant a stop on it. In this case 
> the decision was already taken and nobody challenged it (remember, I was 
> just asking), so it was not needed. If I wanted to start a vote, simply 
> not voting would have made the issue drop automatically.
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.19.shtml
> [2] Consensus Gauging through Silence
>     http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> 


-- 

|---------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin                       |
| Production by Avalon                  |
|                                       |
| http://avalon.apache.org              |
|---------------------------------------|