Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJNb-9pL6LAuqb-gfVFiNg9XfExRSYBSsOp+9AderZ_wNME4TQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAJNb-9pRGw11-Ajo2Tu5COrdLsVEZUEDy9q5qPAMby_zx4WLsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaJBx79zV1JSNL5BnPF_TxYEaW-2ZpLf+WAi6wa4QA94mFSmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJNb-9qWecvR3hiv9i_U0aOqqOn6yvXvEf6fmpw4DHH91LJDfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaJBx7nE_oLQ0q1S8zUZek=RS8m2YgUfr=2QfCmEjBtEjA8ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJNb-9qhPHBFiB1ocXByGCHi3=2F19PcPQHir-p5TRR15Yz1-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaJBx6aeBgGrngZichzArr30jwBG+JDE0uqEgnHVNmngnPi1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJNb-9psGxtYHCwV9uvgD-ZjHpw2sQRyDYd5O5NawZ6+_fJO8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaJBx41gVHvcfbGkWYUFU5oFLpPVSwxvZgUpXLO=WbNAyWQ=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJNb-9pL6LAuqb-gfVFiNg9XfExRSYBSsOp+9AderZ_wNME4TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 19:46:22 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAPaJBx4TxygsULKLX87i9fa4XV70FsaX0JfxsKLYi5ps=Jtm6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged
 [DISCUSS]
From: Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org>
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10c81b5ae44f04dc61954e

--047d7b10c81b5ae44f04dc61954e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Benoit,

Please produce a draft of the by-laws you would like to see.

Thanks,


On 10 May 2013 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

--047d7b10c81b5ae44f04dc61954e--