consesnus

[simo]

On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 13:16 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> Sure, but nobody objects to discussing. :-)
> 
> It's the vote now before we discussed attitude that irritates people.

Quite sensitive people here ...
It didn't irritate me, actually I do not see what's irritating there. If
everyone +1 we'd have it already implemented and nobody would be
irritated.

Now it happened that not everybody agreed, and they through -1s as well
as a tantrum.

Discussion is always good, and we can reconsider or delay votes at any
time, but I do not see anything special in calling a vote, certainly not
a reason to call murder.

I think Jeremy (sorry for putting words in your mouth) thought it was a
no-brainer and so called a vote immediately after presenting the
proposal.

It turns out it was a not so simple and we are discussing.
Why all the fuss around the fact a vote was called ?
A vote is just a simple way to show if there is or not consensus, how
else do you do it ? By counting nodding heads via email ?

[Warning mini rant ahead, feel free to skip]

And on the waf thing, in the end people did not object, but calling it a
consensus decision is really disingenuous.
It was the second most controversial one (I count only the heated talloc
discussion a few years ago as more controversial), and was hated by
many. The fact people allowed the tridge to steamroll it in doesn't mean
there was broad consensus. However the majority was ok with and all the
nayers just accepted the majority decision. The fact it was weaseled up
slowly didn't make it any less painful for those that did not like it.

And mind you this is not a judgment on whether waf is/was good or not,
just that the waf decision is a perfect example of majority rule,
certainly not one of unanimous or nearly unanimous consensus.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>