> Le 16 sept. 2019 à 21:32, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> a écrit : > > * Discussion threads on this mailing list have been very unpleasant > recently. I am unwilling to actively participate in them in this form. This > is bad for everyone, but particularly for opponents of proposals. It means > that we cannot establish the necessary discourse to explore improvements or > alternatives. The recent propensity to suppress certain discussion topics > entirely, as well as the use of overwhelming quantity to disproportionately > push a position, contribute to the unproductive discussion environment. >
The discussion would have been less unpleasant if everyone sought consensus, that is, tried to find a solution that is appropriate for everyone, instead of trying to convince others that their opinion is the right one. There is a qualitative difference between consensus and unanimity. Unanimity means that a solution is preferred by everyone — which is reasonably not possible. Consensus means that a solution is acceptable to everyone, even when it is not the best one for everyone. This is mostly possible, but only if everyone tries to satisfy not only themself, but also the others. But consensus cannot be measured by vote. For example, throwing a TypeError for uninitialised variables cannot reach consensus, because it is not appropriate for those that rely on implicitly initialised variables. Triggering an E_WARNING is nearer to a *possible* consensus. I am not optimistic that there would be a mindset change in the direction of seeking consensus for every participating party of the discussion. However, I am suggesting that if a RFC try to seek a solution that is *at least* acceptable to everyone, there will be less frustration and less irritation from the minority. —Claude
