1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:32:34 -0400 |
3 |
> Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> We agree on very little, but one thing we do agree on is the quantity |
6 |
>> of trolling that DOES occur on -dev when these issues are brought |
7 |
>> up. Is there any method by which a discussion can be had on -PMS in |
8 |
>> a smaller forum, and a proposal could thereby be brought to -dev in |
9 |
>> several weeks agreed upon here, and subsequently submitted to the |
10 |
>> Council? I'm hoping this will reduce the potential for trolling. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> That tends to be what happens anyway, and I strongly suspect we've |
14 |
> already covered all the pros and cons of the proposal on this list that |
15 |
> we're going to come up with (although there're probably some |
16 |
> interesting viewpoints on the upgrade path that can be had from a |
17 |
> wider audience). The wider consultation part is necessary, though, since |
18 |
> I doubt anyone wants things that aren't a simple "there's only one side |
19 |
> to this" to go from PMS to Council without them having had a good public |
20 |
> airing first. |
21 |
> |
22 |
Agreed, but I'd like to have something more formal, and perhaps |
23 |
someplace less loud than -dev for this. |
24 |
|
25 |
> There're threads that end up working fine on gentoo-dev@, and there're |
26 |
> threads where there's an endless supply of FUD posted to them. Things |
27 |
> that tend to help make threads the former rather than the latter are: |
28 |
> |
29 |
> * The initial proposal, and any counter proposals, being clear and well |
30 |
> defined, and not vague ideas that haven't been thought through. It's |
31 |
> possible to screw things up for months just by replying "well I have |
32 |
> an alternate proposal that involves frozbinating the glixnors", and |
33 |
> then not telling anyone what that proposal is. |
34 |
> |
35 |
Agreed |
36 |
> * Arguments for or against a proposal being expressed clearly and in |
37 |
> technical terms, rather than "warblgarbl". |
38 |
> |
39 |
I just mentally filter out such things. |
40 |
> * Getting contributions only from people who understand the issue at |
41 |
> hand. That one's the biggie, and I've not found any way of helping on |
42 |
> that -- providing clear and detailed explanations of everything |
43 |
> has only led to people not reading those explanations. Some people |
44 |
> seem to be able to think that their opinions are relevant even if |
45 |
> they're commenting on highly technical issues that they haven't taken |
46 |
> the time to understand. |
47 |
> |
48 |
Opinions on the internet are like assholes, everyone has one, and some |
49 |
smell more than others. |
50 |
> * Where multiple options are available, having several clearly separate |
51 |
> proposals rather than trying to lump everything into a single |
52 |
> proposal that covers every option. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> The ultimate decision making process also hasn't helped. In the past |
55 |
> the Council has worked on a policy of "if there're any unanswered |
56 |
> questions, the proposal gets postponed", even if those questions are |
57 |
> obviously nonsense and have already been addressed twenty times |
58 |
> previously. This unfortunately means that the trolls can't simply be |
59 |
> ignored. |
60 |
> |
61 |
I don't think you'll get an argument from me on the failures of Council |
62 |
leadership. |
63 |
> Having said that, all it takes is for a couple of people to jump on a |
64 |
> proposal they don't understand and start yelling that it will break |
65 |
> their favourite toy, and at best the proposal then gets derailed for |
66 |
> several months before sanity prevails. |
67 |
> |
68 |
This is what I'm trying to avoid. If we're going to propose something, |
69 |
I'd rather hash it out here and then submit it to dev than to start a |
70 |
-dev thread with "so I had this idea... maybe we could change EAPI-4 to |
71 |
do X" |
72 |
|
73 |
Andrew |