incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Thu, 09 May 2013 16:27:57 GMT
I'm dyslexic. My spelling is a stochastic process. ;)


On 9 May 2013 17:07, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:

> "If by "go back to a more natural process" you mean "go back to the broken
> permission culture we had for the last three years where people were so
> intimidated by the project leads that they gave up bothering to contribute"
> then no. A thousand times no."
>
> Not a thousand, but a million times.
>
> Many things have been delayed, or abandoned, due to inaction from
> developers, and I definitely include myself in that. If I take a week
> or two's vacation, I *expect* things to have changed in CouchDB
> without me, that's healthy. I trust that enough people are involved in
> any change that nothing too egregious can happen.
>
> I do not want to return to the stagnation of the too-recent past.
>
> I'm jazzed that someone said Sisyphean and amused that the same person
> made a principal/principle error. Language is fun.
>
> B.
>
>
> On 9 May 2013 17:00, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 9 May 2013 03:59, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> However, to restate my position, DISCUSS had a suggestion to me that
> >> something
> >> warranted discussion. Your recent threads on workflow all were great. We
> >> should
> >> circle back and conclude them. When something warrants good discussion,
> >> it's
> >> worthwhile to get as much input as we can, and thus it suggests a longer
> >> window
> >> would be appropriate to me.
> >>
> >
> > Totally agreed!
> >
> > I think if anybody had attempted to use lazy consensus on that thread,
> they
> > would have been met with a swift objection. So, in many cases, it's a
> > judgement call. But I think you can be sure that mistakes will be
> corrected
> > for.
> >
> > Also, it's important for us all to remember that everything is reversible
> > If something doesn't work, or some change gets committed that breaks
> > CouchDB, we just revert it, or change things back to how they were.
> >
> >> It sounds to me like you've been caught off-guard because a few
> decisions
> >> > have been made and you didn't have time to contribute. I would suggest
> >> two
> >> > things. 1) Set up email filters so that DISCUSS, VOTE, NOTICE threads
> get
> >> > priority in your inbox. 2) Come up with a list of things you think we
> >> > should not leave to lazy consensus.
> >>
> >> Sounds like we need a well-understood set of these.
> >>
> >> If we can just enumerate them all I'd be happy to clean it up and make
> >> a definitions file.
> >>
> >> Noah, is this included in your idea of bylaws, or is this a separate
> >> document?
> >>
> >
> > Hmm. I guess it would be good to standardise them. Not sure you'd want to
> > make them a requirement. But perhaps just include them as suggestions.
> LIke
> > a set of best practices. Totally open to possibilities here!
> >
> > --
> > NS
>



-- 
NS

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message