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 <bchesn...@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 <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 10 May 2013 09:39, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@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
