On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:43 AM Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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. > > You've hit the nail on the head. I can't speak for everyone, but I know the while both Zeev and myself did not like most* of the ideas proposed in the RFC, we both had mentioned the idea of making them opt-in as a possible compromise. That proposal was flat out rejected. At the same time, we do have to be realistic and realize that sometimes a compromise solution isn't feasible or the way to go. If one side wants to build a 100 yard bridge to an island, and the other side doesn't want to build the bridge at all, compromising and building a 50 yard bridge isn't a good solution. * I say most, because there are a few things that we were OK with - which goes back to something else Zeev mentioned, which is not putting so many changes into a single RFC and/or a separate vote for each proposed change. I personally favor limiting the number of changes in an RFC because I think it's hard to focus the discussion, even if the votes are separated out. > —Claude -- Chase Peeler chasepee...@gmail.com
