Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 99E29F31B for ; Thu, 9 May 2013 16:28:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 89432 invoked by uid 500); 9 May 2013 16:28:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 89398 invoked by uid 500); 9 May 2013 16:28:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 89389 invoked by uid 99); 9 May 2013 16:28:00 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 May 2013 16:28:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-wg0-f46.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username nslater, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 May 2013 16:27:59 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id n12so3165553wgh.1 for ; Thu, 09 May 2013 09:27:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=dswq7cGzoWRpj/Xl4V/sk6L4Ox8noj6d79cRgTl6M8Y=; b=ciEtn45beo1hAewcgqXMjm92x9ej6sv0rofIE/6xis6nCgEq6SEqEZ7UIriSsL4tGt 9li1GXgbN2GbzbWZcYOQhVYDG3mQdpdTj7ZemWgl8y2+GYGNFvXHJdLO6qG1ks3nG5by BFVxsRLndC1ed9mLeUeEUOO3lAPdBIkaFiD4paPO5ztGn9UrZYJ795EJK/yK6kWbNizl nOxjPZaNWfo8HHWrBIzjeZVXj5K3y0g/L3y6kzjvBm1gPWsN3cTV0VlThlZ4SJRl6B+C lIncibnfdwb7+FRNpeqNO7Xxc3lXM2Sk0D+gpLI6Zefp+do9RZiO/Jw2AIVbdSufMDSN k/mw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.122.166 with SMTP id lt6mr19249301wjb.14.1368116877909; Thu, 09 May 2013 09:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.82.69 with HTTP; Thu, 9 May 2013 09:27:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [79.97.124.139] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 17:27:57 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS] From: Noah Slater To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01227ed884fbb604dc4b8890 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkT0/oknBN1T/rq3EiHGX77aRRoHZgIEy4EgU5cRTe/pJCLpHT4GiHHRk6uWekAQZdvQaFW --089e01227ed884fbb604dc4b8890 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm dyslexic. My spelling is a stochastic process. ;) On 9 May 2013 17:07, Robert Newson 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 wrote: > > On 9 May 2013 03:59, Randall Leeds 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 --089e01227ed884fbb604dc4b8890--