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 Fri, 10 May 2013 19:34:50 GMT
Randall, I think I understand your argument. Would it be true to say that
you think that "DISCUSS" threads should be reserved for actual discussion,
and that we need a new tag for the threads which give notice about lazy
consensus?


On 10 May 2013 20:00, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll hop in to repeat my observation one more time and offer evidence of
> the behavior which caused me to empathize with Benoit.
>
> In the recent email about old releases tagged [DISCUSS] Noah said:
>
> "If nobody objects in 72 hours, I will assume lazy consensus and proceed."
>
> I like lazy consensus and consider it rolling and ubiquitous in the actions
> of committers and in play even as we make decisions with zero discussion.
> We act because we *believe* we would have consensus. In every case where
> there is no formal discussion I believe I am representing my best guess at
> what *would be* explicit consensus if it were discussed. This is my
> understanding of lazy consensus but I'm happy to be corrected.
>
> However, 72 hours seems antithetical to discussion. If you call for
> discussion because you want feedback, please give some time, especially
> when it's not urgent. I'm not sure it is necessary to say exactly how long.
>
> That's a concrete recommendation from me. I hope that is constructive and
> can help resolve this discussion.
> On May 10, 2013 11:50 AM, "Noah Slater" <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > It's also perfectly fine to respond saying "woah there cowboy, we need to
> > discuss this first."
> >
> >
> > On 10 May 2013 19:47, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > NS
> >
>



-- 
NS

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