develooper Front page | perl.cpan.workers | Postings from May 2015

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Peter Rabbitson
Date:
May 1, 2015 06:23
Subject:
Re: On the current Test::More-to-be
Message ID:
55431BE6.5080001@cpan.org
On 04/30/2015 11:23 PM, David Golden wrote:
> I'll accept his statement that his way of expressing his point of view 
> is innocent rather than malicious.

It really does not matter to me whether my expression is seen as 
malicious. What is of paramount and exclusive importance to me is that 
my message and position are:
- unambiguously put within a public record
- not being coopted

>   It nonetheless implies (a) that few obstacles remain

I am claiming exactly this.  A hastily put together list of 5 points, 
without a hint of a mechanism of adding new points *is* for all intents 
and purposes "few obstacles remain".

> and (b) everyone agrees about that

"Agreement" is a fluid concept. For example the entirety of my voting 
during the T::B discussion was of the form (sourced from [1]) "a member 
feels a proposal endangers the organization or its participants, or 
violates the mission of the organization". Yet everyone I asked was 
under the impression that I considered the list a sufficient starting 
point. I accept that this is my fault - I didn't assess the climate at 
the time well enough. In retrospect the only way to fully register my 
position was to literally walk out of the room.

With that being said the situation as *I* see it is:

- The original list was put together under duress (in the form of time 
pressure)[2]
- The list was ratified by a U-1 consensus
- Possibility of a future modifications to the list were not discussed 
at any time during the "official part", making the list effectively 
immutable.

Please let me know what about the process and results did I 
mischaracterize/misrepresent.

> (or that no one cares)

I maintain that no one cares *nearly enough*. I can elaborate on this on 
further request, though I do not consider doing so productive.

> ... and what I think makes for a constructive conversation about code.

The conversation is *not* about a spherical hunk of code in a vacuum. 
Deliberately avoiding discussion of the goals and personalities driving 
towards these goals is what put is in this mess in the first place.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
[2] "Consent must be genuine and cannot be obtained by force, duress or 
fraud." also from [1]


Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About