Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> writes:
Hi Vagrant,
Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
* A serious concern is what blocks consensus, not the person
Agreed. And I believe there should be no discussions after the
final
"deliberation" phase is done, which puts the focus on the
disapproving
individuals and often ask of them to explain again their
rationale for
doing so, while the process should have made that clear earlier
already.
It is way too easy to point to the person raising a blocking
concern,
but that is absolutely the worst thing you can do to build
consensus.
It should be focused on the issues raised as something to
cooperatively
resolve, not the individual personalities involved.
To this end, I would like to propose that concerns are
(eventually)
raised as pull requests, patches or issues in some formalized
process.
Not exactly replying to the above, but related: GCDs should
perhaps be
*encouraged* to be mostly about technical matters?
I hope you mean instead that GCDs should be *actionable*. Many
decisions --- even about technical matters --- require
establishment of political will as the basis upon which action is
taken. It is, for example, a non-technical choice to what degree
we uphold the ideal of reproducibility, and that commitment
informs technical decisions, which then follow in an obvious
fashion. That non-technical choice is rooted in the philosophy of
science and only has pale, imperfect representations in the
various technical substrates.
It would be terribly myopic to deliberately ignore the context in
which technical choices are decided, just because that context
itself is not amenable to decisions in purely technical terms. It
would be discouraging the recognition of forests, recommending
instead to see just an individual tree.
That said, I agree with Vagrant's recommendation that concerns be
raised as pull requests, patches, or issues. This make them
trivial to track, and the former two of the three options are
obviously constructive contributions, which is what GCD1 required
for valid objections.
--
Ricardo
