consesnus

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 12:23 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:

I want to pull a these few words out (and out of context) to make a
point:

> If we find consensus

This is the single most important thing here.  Far more than what
exactly we decide, because it goes to the heart of the real discussion
here. 

For me, the most disheartening thing about this whole discussion has
been the majority vote thing.  So early into the discussion of this, we
had a rally to a 50% vote, something we haven't done before.

This pitted member against member, as we rallied to sides, rather than
promote a collaboration to find an arrangement that will work for all of
us.  

I don't want us to stay static in our code quality.  Indeed, I've been a
passionate advocate of mechanisms that, while also incredibly irritating
in their own right, have shown to dramatically increase Samba's quality.

What I do want is a solution that is at least workable for all of us,
and works very well for almost all of us.  I'm not demanding that we
come to a total accommodation on everything (consensus can mean we never
change, and I've certainly advocated for plenty of other controversial
changes), but we should first acknowledge each other's concerns as
legitimate, and their fears valid, even if only in their own mind.

We should first work to address, rather than dismiss, those concerns
fears.  

We need to work this way because to do otherwise is to rip the team
apart.  We are (sadly) a fragile team held together no longer by strong
social bonds but by a common technical code-base.  We must in improving
Samba strengthen those bonds, not weaken them, or else we just won't
have a team any more.  

I would appreciate your commitment that any change you propose or
support here would be on this basis, for the good of the team.

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org