Benoit, it's not that you're "the bad guy" for disagreeing. The problem is when you filibuster people until they run out of energy. This has been a problem for a long time now.
As we continue to grow CouchDB we need to get out of this mindset that unanimity is required to proceed on any action. You cannot scale a decision making process beyond a few people with that model. Our problems will only *worsen* unless we figure out way to solve this. You seem to be implying that my approach (which is not really my approach, but rather the Apache approach) is silencing or disempowering people. Quite the contrary. In fact, I have openly stated that anyone on this mailing list may raise a formal objection and I will immediately cease my current action. And I will then move this to a vote so that we can tally people's opinions. Nobody has done that yet. This is the 13th email now. And we're at 2549 words. In fact, what I am doing is empowering. Because I'm also stating that anyone else can do this. If you (dear reader) have a proposal, and you are worried that you're going to be filibustered off the mailing list, I invite you to share it with the group. And I invite you to solicit clear, unambiguous objections. Do not let people send email after email with concerns, and nitpicks, and disquitions on nomenclature. Remind people: so far I have not heard an objection. If someone has a formal objection to make, please make it. > I had no response to the reasons I have gave (a "I read you" is not a > response) It is a response. I understand your concerns. What else do you want me to say? There's nothing else to discuss. I still think the mailing list is a good idea. I want to try it as an experiment, and am happy to report back to the PMC. On 4 February 2014 10:16, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org> > wrote: >> >> >> +1 to all that, Noah. I can only imagine what this looks like to casual >> readers. >> >> Few things require unanimity and this is not one of them. >> >> The reason I've stayed quiet on the proposal is that while I don't feel >> strongly for it, I don't feel strongly against it. It's not my time or >> effort being expended, and I applaud when others expend effort to help our >> project. >> >> To see so many threads crash in the same way, still, is very upsetting. >> Benoit, when you do this, I generally just archive the thread and stop >> contributing. It's tiresome. >> >> B. > > > > I am not surprised. > > I am off course the bad and hostile guy always in disagreement, always > reverting its position. Which is untrue. I of couse accept the decision of > most even if I disagree. This is the power of a democracy. But beeing in > disagreeement sometimes is not beeing hostile. > > If nothing can be discussed then fine, let's supposed that concensus = > silent acceptation from the mass and forget little voices that express > themselves. This is indeed quite easier to handle. Now consider how this is > hostile for the little voice that express when the only response you get in > these threads is , oh the silent acceptation is enough, and anyway I don't > need it to continue what I wanted to do. This is just as saying, i am just > launching the thread, but in reality I am not looking for any consulting, > just looking for people that are following me. This is were the hostility > is and this is what can put people out of voice. > > I didn't disagree about any marketing action in that thread. I also didn't > disagree at all. I objected to the creation of a new mailing-list when it > came in a discussion and gave my reasons for. I had no response to the > reasons I have gave (a "I read you" is not a response). In return to my > objections i was categorised about beeing hostile, and beeing an action > blocker, ... . > > Thank you. > > - benoit > > -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
