Resolution of Contentious Issues

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
32 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Resolution of Contentious Issues

Casey Ransberger-2
Good people of Squeak,

I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues. Namespaces are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call them Oddballs,) just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that almost everyone who speaks out has a different idea about how to #doIt. The conversation usually goes in a long circle, and then gets garbage collected when everyone gets too fatigued with the debate to continue it.

Later, often much later, someone posts about the same topic again. Usually it's a newbie who isn't aware of the longstanding debate *raises hand.* Other times it's someone who's been around a little while and is frustrated because the discussion died again *raises hand*. Either way, a message gets sent that creates a new instance of the discussion in question. Many arguments are repeated, and usually the thread runs out of references and is eaten by the GC again.

I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We usually have a very small group of people who are actually compelled to post. I thought we might try using the voting machinery we have set up for board elections as a way of collecting information (polling) about the popularity of various problems we have (or don't actually have but think we have!) in the community. I'm not sure we even need to treat it all that seriously... it would be neat to be able to rank out the popularity of various approaches to e.g. namespaces somehow, though, so I'd know which project to go offer to help hack on.

I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the first SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in squeak-dev, while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make decisions about stuff like this, and then as a result get to make progress, even on issues which are contentious in their community. I don't know if we actually need or want a "working group," whatever that is, but it would be nice to _have a pulse on the desires of the broader Squeak community._

To be clear: I just want to be able to rank the popularity of people's solutions to various problems... not compel anyone to action. When there's two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, it would be nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that I can quit arguing on a mailing list and #doIt.

Thoughts? Love it? Hate it?

--
Casey Ransberger


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Juan Vuletich-4
Casey Ransberger wrote:

> Good people of Squeak,
>
> I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues.
> Namespaces are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call
> them Oddballs,) just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that
> almost everyone who speaks out has a different idea about how to
> #doIt. The conversation usually goes in a long circle, and then gets
> garbage collected when everyone gets too fatigued with the debate to
> continue it.
>
> Later, often much later, someone posts about the same topic again.
> Usually it's a newbie who isn't aware of the longstanding debate
> *raises hand.* Other times it's someone who's been around a little
> while and is frustrated because the discussion died again *raises
> hand*. Either way, a message gets sent that creates a new instance of
> the discussion in question. Many arguments are repeated, and usually
> the thread runs out of references and is eaten by the GC again.
>
> I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We
> usually have a very small group of people who are actually compelled
> to post. I thought we might try using the voting machinery we have set
> up for board elections as a way of collecting information (polling)
> about the popularity of various problems we have (or don't actually
> have but think we have!) in the community. I'm not sure we even need
> to treat it all that seriously... it would be neat to be able to rank
> out the popularity of various approaches to e.g. namespaces somehow,
> though, so I'd know which project to go offer to help hack on.

The poll could be used by the Board as relevant info, but the ultimate
decision should be made by the Board. In addition, this decision making
procedure should be used especially (and maybe only) when there is an
actual decision to make, i.e. when somebody has volunteered to implement
at least one of the options.

> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the
> first SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in
> squeak-dev, while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make
> decisions about stuff like this, and then as a result get to make
> progress, even on issues which are contentious in their community. I
> don't know if we actually need or want a "working group," whatever
> that is, but it would be nice to _have a pulse on the desires of the
> broader Squeak community._
>
> To be clear: I just want to be able to rank the popularity of people's
> solutions to various problems... not compel anyone to action. When
> there's two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation,
> it would be nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that
> I can quit arguing on a mailing list and #doIt.
>
> Thoughts? Love it? Hate it?
>
> --
> Casey Ransberger

Love it, of course. I really don't like when it looks like most people
would have some particular opinion, but what really happened is that
just one or two guys kept arguing until all the rest were just too tired
to keep discussing.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Andreas.Raab
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger-2
On 5/9/2011 0:07, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the
> first SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in
> squeak-dev, while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make
> decisions about stuff like this, and then as a result get to make
> progress, even on issues which are contentious in their community.

Curious: Do you have a couple of examples for such issues?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Casey Ransberger-2
Sure. Off the top of my head, beyond namespaces, I've seen threads start and die more than once around:

 - how to get from a monolithic image to a kernel image
 - whether or not to integrate with conventional SCM tools and/or how
 - the un-forking/re-integration of things like Monticello

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 5/9/2011 0:07, Casey Ransberger wrote:
I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the
first SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in
squeak-dev, while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make
decisions about stuff like this, and then as a result get to make
progress, even on issues which are contentious in their community.

Curious: Do you have a couple of examples for such issues?

Cheers,
 - Andreas




--
Casey Ransberger


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

ccrraaiigg
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger-2

Hi Casey--

> ...almost everyone who speaks out has a different idea about how to
> #doIt. The conversation usually goes in a long circle, and then gets
> garbage-collected when everyone gets too fatigued with the debate to
> continue it.

     Having the discussion in real time by voice would help, especially
when the participants are already familiar with the positions from
previous thoughtful discussion in text. We could have focused
conversations on Skype, for example. Many issues which would have taken
weeks (or years) over text have been settled over a single lunch, no
kidding.

> Other times it's someone who's been around a little while and is
> frustrated because the discussion died again *raises hand*.

     Yeah, usually what I write gets no response at all, which is pretty
frustrating.

> ...it would be neat to be able to rank out the popularity of various
> approaches to e.g. namespaces somehow, though, so I'd know which
> project to go offer to help hack on.

     That would be interesting information that I'd like to see. At the
same time, I'd hope that you would also be convinced by the position,
not just compelled by its popularity? If everyone directed their energy
just by what was most popular, we'd get... oh, wait, that's why computer
science is so fucked up now. :)


-C

--
Craig Latta
www.netjam.org/resume
+31  06 2757 7177
+ 1 415  287 3547





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Andreas.Raab
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger-2
On 5/9/2011 9:42, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> Sure. Off the top of my head, beyond namespaces, I've seen threads start
> and die more than once around:
>
>   - how to get from a monolithic image to a kernel image
>   - whether or not to integrate with conventional SCM tools and/or how
>   - the un-forking/re-integration of things like Monticello

And how were these issues resolved?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On 5/9/2011 0:07, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>
>         I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened
>         at the
>         first SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in
>         circles in
>         squeak-dev, while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make
>         decisions about stuff like this, and then as a result get to make
>         progress, even on issues which are contentious in their community.
>
>
>     Curious: Do you have a couple of examples for such issues?
>
>     Cheers,
>       - Andreas
>
>
>
>
> --
> Casey Ransberger
>
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Stéphane Rollandin
In reply to this post by Juan Vuletich-4
My opinion on this is:

If a problem is hairy and people disagree on options, discussing it at
lengths in big threads that may repeat what has already been said, it
means that a lot of work is needed to understand the issue from all its
relevant dimensions; involved people, the one who write posts about it,
have specific point of views and if no agreement can be reached, it is
because it is difficult to grok the point of view of someone else, or to
explain convincingly why it is maybe not an interesting point of view.

Anyway. The last thing I would like in such a situation is a community
vote. Because a vote does not explain anything, a vote does not tell if
the voter understand anything whatsoever about the problem being
discussed, a vote does not give any clue about the voter motivation and
involvement. The vote does not bring anything constructive, so why bother ?


my 2 cents,

Stef

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Casey Ransberger-2
I just want to know which solution the majority of people want to some of these issues, so I know what to go hack on. I'd rather avoid spending a lot of time fixing bugs in the implementation that no one wants, unless I like it enough to use it in spite of all of you:) I'm not trying to suggest we use a vote to compel anyone to action. I was just pointing out that it would be a good way to poll the community for consensus on contentious issues.

If the better idea is siloing decisions in small rooms and keeping the broader community out of the final conversation whenever a topic is contentious, that sounds like a problem to me... just saying. Ultimately the board steers the brand, but it probably helps the board steer the brand to know what the consumers of the brand actually want:)

2011/5/9 Stéphane Rollandin <[hidden email]>
My opinion on this is:

If a problem is hairy and people disagree on options, discussing it at lengths in big threads that may repeat what has already been said, it means that a lot of work is needed to understand the issue from all its relevant dimensions; involved people, the one who write posts about it, have specific point of views and if no agreement can be reached, it is because it is difficult to grok the point of view of someone else, or to explain convincingly why it is maybe not an interesting point of view.

Anyway. The last thing I would like in such a situation is a community vote. Because a vote does not explain anything, a vote does not tell if the voter understand anything whatsoever about the problem being discussed, a vote does not give any clue about the voter motivation and involvement. The vote does not bring anything constructive, so why bother ?


my 2 cents,

Stef




--
Casey Ransberger


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Stéphane Rollandin
> If the better idea is siloing decisions in small rooms and keeping the
> broader community out of the final conversation whenever a topic is
> contentious, that sounds like a problem to me...

Certainly not what I suggest.

You talked about long recurring threads leading to nowhere: this happens
publicly, doesn't it ? I'm only saying that if there is longlasting
disagreement about an issue, that issue needs to discussed again, not
solved via a vote.

I don't know what made you think I have been asking for a "private final
conversation". I can only remark that you are not pleased by my honest
answer to your question. Well, if you do not want answers, don't ask
questions. Or, if you want controlled answers, just set up a vote:
voting is a good way to pretend being open while presenting only the
options you are interested in.


Stef

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Casey Ransberger-2
Sorry, I must have miscommunicated. This was not meant to imply that you were suggesting a "private final conversation." I was actually attempting to reference the "working group" idea, and I don't think I communicated that effectively; mea culpa.

The point I keep trying to get across is that I'm asking to use the voting system to *poll* people, for strictly informational purposes, not hold a vote.

2011/5/9 Stéphane Rollandin <[hidden email]>
If the better idea is siloing decisions in small rooms and keeping the
broader community out of the final conversation whenever a topic is
contentious, that sounds like a problem to me...

Certainly not what I suggest.

You talked about long recurring threads leading to nowhere: this happens publicly, doesn't it ? I'm only saying that if there is longlasting disagreement about an issue, that issue needs to discussed again, not solved via a vote.

I don't know what made you think I have been asking for a "private final conversation". I can only remark that you are not pleased by my honest answer to your question. Well, if you do not want answers, don't ask questions. Or, if you want controlled answers, just set up a vote: voting is a good way to pretend being open while presenting only the options you are interested in.


Stef




--
Casey Ransberger


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Stéphane Rollandin
> Sorry, I must have miscommunicated. This was not meant to imply that you
> were suggesting a "private final conversation." I was actually
> attempting to reference the "working group" idea, and I don't think I
> communicated that effectively; mea culpa.

Ok

> The point I keep trying to get across is that I'm asking to use the
> voting system to *poll* people, for strictly informational purposes, not
> hold a vote.

Then my point is that there is no much information in a vote.

Stef

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Casey Ransberger-2
Well taken! I'm not talking about a vote. I'm talking about an opinion poll, which is just a way of studying public opinion. I think public opinion is a really fun and interesting topic:) I'm realizing that my use of the words 'vote' and 'poll' were ill-advised. What I mean is nearly "opinion poll" or maybe "statistical survey."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll

2011/5/9 Stéphane Rollandin <[hidden email]>
Sorry, I must have miscommunicated. This was not meant to imply that you
were suggesting a "private final conversation." I was actually
attempting to reference the "working group" idea, and I don't think I
communicated that effectively; mea culpa.

Ok


The point I keep trying to get across is that I'm asking to use the
voting system to *poll* people, for strictly informational purposes, not
hold a vote.

Then my point is that there is no much information in a vote.

Stef




--
Casey Ransberger


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

K K Subbu
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger-2
On Monday 09 May 2011 3:37:23 AM Casey Ransberger wrote:
> To be clear: I just want to be able to rank the popularity of people's
> solutions to various problems... not compel anyone to action. When there's
> two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, it would be
> nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that I can quit
> arguing on a mailing list and #doIt.
I would favor a system where the "owner" or "maintainer" of a feature or bug
gets to make the final decision on a particular solution using whichever method
he/she thinks is appropriate. The owner could use a Coin Flip, Voting, Delta,
Six Hats or any other decision process to arrive at the solution.

No decision making techique is perfect. What matters is that the issue needs
to be closed and we move forward. We will only know if decision is good or bad
by hindsight. That is a risk that we have to take.

(I hope this doesn't become yet another looooooong dangling thread ;-)).

Subbu

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Chris Muller-3
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger-2
Casey,

> I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues. Namespaces
> are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call them Oddballs,)
> just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that almost everyone who
> speaks out has a different idea about how to #doIt. The conversation usually
> goes in a long circle, and then gets garbage collected when everyone gets
> too fatigued with the debate to continue it.

Vigorous debate is not only normal, but essential, for a successful
software development community.

> I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We

Did the "silent majority" have a silent vote, and that's how you know
they were the "majority" of something?

> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the first
> SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in squeak-dev,

We "tend to argue in circles" in squeak-dev.  That's ridiculous.

> while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make decisions about stuff

They do?  I searched the Pharo list for "working group" but did not
find any announcements.  Can you tell us more?  Who are they, what did
they work on, and what was the final "solution"?

As for Squeak, squeak-dev _is_ the working group.

> like this, and then as a result get to make progress, even on issues which

"Progress?"  That's a very subjective term..

> are contentious in their community. I don't know if we actually need or want
> a "working group," whatever that is, but it would be nice to _have a pulse
> on the desires of the broader Squeak community._

I would say, if the pulse isn't clear, this is the place to find it.
You can poll here, our community is small enough to be able to do that
by just reading the responses of the folks who care enough to voice
their opinion.  The "silent majority" has no voice other than their
code, which must be good enough to lure our community into change.

> two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, it would be
> nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that I can quit arguing
> on a mailing list and #doIt.

I think you know, there's plenty to work on that requires no arguing.  :)

 - Chris

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Chris Muller-3
Just to clarify, I am not against survey-style polling; in fact I am
greatly interested in counting.  However, the way this was presented,
as a "resolution of contentious issues," while at the same time,
itself, being contentious with divisive, comparative language; that
approach will not be effective to garner my support.

I would only participate if I were sure the poll would not serve as a
wedge to divide our community / communities.

However, maybe not, because perhaps the emergent phenomena of "no
consensus" should be viewed _as_ a consensus; that the proposal could
not pass muster with enough of the bright minds here for action to be
warranted and, therefore, the choice not do do it was and is the
correct one.

 - Chris



On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Casey,
>
>> I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues. Namespaces
>> are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call them Oddballs,)
>> just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that almost everyone who
>> speaks out has a different idea about how to #doIt. The conversation usually
>> goes in a long circle, and then gets garbage collected when everyone gets
>> too fatigued with the debate to continue it.
>
> Vigorous debate is not only normal, but essential, for a successful
> software development community.
>
>> I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We
>
> Did the "silent majority" have a silent vote, and that's how you know
> they were the "majority" of something?
>
>> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the first
>> SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in squeak-dev,
>
> We "tend to argue in circles" in squeak-dev.  That's ridiculous.
>
>> while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make decisions about stuff
>
> They do?  I searched the Pharo list for "working group" but did not
> find any announcements.  Can you tell us more?  Who are they, what did
> they work on, and what was the final "solution"?
>
> As for Squeak, squeak-dev _is_ the working group.
>
>> like this, and then as a result get to make progress, even on issues which
>
> "Progress?"  That's a very subjective term..
>
>> are contentious in their community. I don't know if we actually need or want
>> a "working group," whatever that is, but it would be nice to _have a pulse
>> on the desires of the broader Squeak community._
>
> I would say, if the pulse isn't clear, this is the place to find it.
> You can poll here, our community is small enough to be able to do that
> by just reading the responses of the folks who care enough to voice
> their opinion.  The "silent majority" has no voice other than their
> code, which must be good enough to lure our community into change.
>
>> two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, it would be
>> nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that I can quit arguing
>> on a mailing list and #doIt.
>
> I think you know, there's plenty to work on that requires no arguing.  :)
>
>  - Chris
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Nicolas Cellier
In reply to this post by Stéphane Rollandin
I see, you would want to introduce more democracy in the development process.
This raises many questions:
- Who would have the power to raise the subject to be voted for
- Who would formulate the questions
- Who could vote
- Should vote be motivated or not

By now, the situation is the following (my understanding):

The core developpers have commit right.
They shall do peer reviews on commits.
The core developpers are nominated by the board.
The board is elected by a community.
The community members are co-opted.

Design decisions are discussed in squeak-dev.
Anyone can participate to the dicussion.
The final commit decision is in the hand of core developpers.
Until now, decisions are generally discussed before applied (apart
obvious fixes).
They are rather motivated and meet agreement among the peers
(at least, they meet no major disagreement).

Anyone can submit a change in the inbox.
There is no guaranty that this change will be integrated or even considered
As mentionned earlier, the fastest way to integration is a good rationale.
The biggest the change is, the best the rationale should be.

Anyone can submit an idea in squeak-dev.
However, please consider that an idea might be far from a solution.
You'll probably have to convince both programmers and commiters, and
make plans...

As stated in an old thread, trunk has no global development plan.
Trunk is just a community of individuals with individual goals.
This configuration favours a certain conservatism.
This is seen as an advantage for maintaining existing applications.
Introduction of pragmatic little changes is rather fast and welcomed in trunk.
Generally, the trunk is not doing bad wrt continuous integration.

On the other side, introduction of major changes certainly is restrained.
IMO, integration of major changes can happen if these changes:
- are ready to integrate
- either simplify a framework or extend functionalities significantly
- don't gratuitously ruin compatibility with a bunch of usefull packages
- are elegant, simple, not over-engineered

I think Pharo is somehow complementary:
less conservatism and less restrictions about API changes.
Pharo has written goals (and certainly some unwritten too) and
priorities (kind of plan).
So if you have revolutionary solutions matching one of the goals
(written or unwritten), you might knock at Pharo's door.
However, neither is Pharo a democracy.

If you have a wonderful simplification, you can also try selling it to
Juan and have it adopted in Cuis.
Neither a democracy.

Well, having a choice among several dictatorships already is a start
of democracy ;)
That said, current model is not written in stone and can evolve.
It should evolve if it fails to find resources to survive.
IMO the board should drive these evolutions.
Anyone can ask for though and you're welcome.

Nicolas

2011/5/9 Stéphane Rollandin <[hidden email]>:

> My opinion on this is:
>
> If a problem is hairy and people disagree on options, discussing it at
> lengths in big threads that may repeat what has already been said, it means
> that a lot of work is needed to understand the issue from all its relevant
> dimensions; involved people, the one who write posts about it, have specific
> point of views and if no agreement can be reached, it is because it is
> difficult to grok the point of view of someone else, or to explain
> convincingly why it is maybe not an interesting point of view.
>
> Anyway. The last thing I would like in such a situation is a community vote.
> Because a vote does not explain anything, a vote does not tell if the voter
> understand anything whatsoever about the problem being discussed, a vote
> does not give any clue about the voter motivation and involvement. The vote
> does not bring anything constructive, so why bother ?
>
>
> my 2 cents,
>
> Stef
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Casey Ransberger-2
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
Yes, yes, yes. It was about the worst piece of communication I've done in the longest time. Here's where I screwed it up:

* The title was completely wrong. I even managed to totally botch a statement meant to say "I'm not so sure about the whole working-group idea that I heard about because it sounds exclusionary, even if it gets conflicts resolved," such that someone on the list thought I was being disrespectful even though I didn't even intend to disagree, much less display any disrespect. Mega-oops. This was my fault.

* I called it a "silent majority" because my gut says there's a Pareto effect going on, and probably 20% or less of us actually post. I have no proof nor a count of the readers on squeak-dev. I shouldn't have made a statement like that without having some numbers to attach to it. I screwed up here too. Totally my fault.

* Completely incorrect terminology in the text of my message suggested to most readers that I was trying to bureaucratize the process whenever we disagree about stuff and force people to go work things they don't want to... which would be totally awful, and wouldn't work, because there's no way to force anyone to do anything anyway! 

* What I heard was, the working group is something they're planning, and I screwed up and used the present tense in my email. Ooops. Sorry about that, all.

* I don't know for sure about the working group thing, that's just something I heard. So it's also hearsay, I don't actually know that for certain, and so I really shouldn't have brought it up. This also is my fault. I'm really, really sorry. 

I was really, frankly, fishing for a way to figure out which bloody namespace implementation I should go try to make work well enough to get it into the Trunk. Since I don't care that much *how* it works, I just want to figure out which approach is the most popular so that I minimize the risk that I'm hacking on something no one will ever use. I didn't want to imply that anyone should use this information to force anyone to do anything, etc, I think _that would be awful_.  But I used a very poor set of words and completely failed to express myself effectively. This is *my* fault.

I was just looking for a way of getting information about what people in the community actually wanted. I was not trying to make people vote to decide anything. "Resolution of Contentious Issues" is really the worst title I could have chosen. I screwed up there. In my head I pictured polling people and then discussing the results of the "opinion poll" on squeak-dev, to see whether or not the increased visibility into the desires of the community might get people aligning a bit more on what to go do.

I also want to be clear that _I don't want a working group_ or _any such thing_.

I'm looking back at what I wrote and seeing how you could even easily read into it that I was bashing the Squeak community while praising the Pharo community. Not my intent at all, and I didn't intend to beat up on the Pharo community either -- lots of really nice people doing really cool stuff there too. In the past I've avoided trying to compare the projects too much, because it's one of those things you can say and get both parties thinking that you've been kicking their dogs even if that isn't your intent.

Wow! Man this one takes the cake. It's just an epic piece of poor communication on my part.

My sincerest apologies to everyone who has read this this thread. I was really just fishing to see if people would be interested in using the voting tool to do an opinion poll. It was a random passing thought that I should have let bake for a few more minutes. What I honestly should have done was go to bed hours before I sent that. I've been on something of a programming spree for a few days -- got some time off and just went nuts with a much needed creative burst -- and I may have been pushing myself a little too hard. Sleep is important, sometimes I forget about that when the bits are lining up and I'm in the zone :(

I am self-imposing detention.

I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
 --casey

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just to clarify, I am not against survey-style polling; in fact I am
greatly interested in counting.  However, the way this was presented,
as a "resolution of contentious issues," while at the same time,
itself, being contentious with divisive, comparative language; that
approach will not be effective to garner my support.

I would only participate if I were sure the poll would not serve as a
wedge to divide our community / communities.

However, maybe not, because perhaps the emergent phenomena of "no
consensus" should be viewed _as_ a consensus; that the proposal could
not pass muster with enough of the bright minds here for action to be
warranted and, therefore, the choice not do do it was and is the
correct one.

 - Chris



On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Casey,
>
>> I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues. Namespaces
>> are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call them Oddballs,)
>> just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that almost everyone who
>> speaks out has a different idea about how to #doIt. The conversation usually
>> goes in a long circle, and then gets garbage collected when everyone gets
>> too fatigued with the debate to continue it.
>
> Vigorous debate is not only normal, but essential, for a successful
> software development community.
>
>> I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We
>
> Did the "silent majority" have a silent vote, and that's how you know
> they were the "majority" of something?
>
>> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the first
>> SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in squeak-dev,
>
> We "tend to argue in circles" in squeak-dev.  That's ridiculous.
>
>> while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make decisions about stuff
>
> They do?  I searched the Pharo list for "working group" but did not
> find any announcements.  Can you tell us more?  Who are they, what did
> they work on, and what was the final "solution"?
>
> As for Squeak, squeak-dev _is_ the working group.
>
>> like this, and then as a result get to make progress, even on issues which
>
> "Progress?"  That's a very subjective term..
>
>> are contentious in their community. I don't know if we actually need or want
>> a "working group," whatever that is, but it would be nice to _have a pulse
>> on the desires of the broader Squeak community._
>
> I would say, if the pulse isn't clear, this is the place to find it.
> You can poll here, our community is small enough to be able to do that
> by just reading the responses of the folks who care enough to voice
> their opinion.  The "silent majority" has no voice other than their
> code, which must be good enough to lure our community into change.
>
>> two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, it would be
>> nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that I can quit arguing
>> on a mailing list and #doIt.
>
> I think you know, there's plenty to work on that requires no arguing.  :)
>
>  - Chris
>




--
Casey Ransberger


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Nicolas Cellier
Oh, great, you made us all afraid with this thread about coding and democracy...
See how embarassed and negative the reactions were.

If it's just about self punishment, then it's all right, you'll
probably get plenty of suggestions.
You could for example cut one finger...
Or increase spring stiffness of left click and return key by an
integer power of 10.
Or maybe read the whole literature on java an C++ before daring asking
a single stupid question about object programming.
I'll let my peers finish the work.

Cheers

Nicolas

2011/5/9 Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]>:

> Yes, yes, yes. It was about the worst piece of communication I've done in
> the longest time. Here's where I screwed it up:
> * The title was completely wrong. I even managed to totally botch a
> statement meant to say "I'm not so sure about the whole working-group idea
> that I heard about because it sounds exclusionary, even if it gets conflicts
> resolved," such that someone on the list thought I was being disrespectful
> even though I didn't even intend to disagree, much less display any
> disrespect. Mega-oops. This was my fault.
> * I called it a "silent majority" because my gut says there's a Pareto
> effect going on, and probably 20% or less of us actually post. I have no
> proof nor a count of the readers on squeak-dev. I shouldn't have made a
> statement like that without having some numbers to attach to it. I screwed
> up here too. Totally my fault.
> * Completely incorrect terminology in the text of my message suggested to
> most readers that I was trying to bureaucratize the process whenever we
> disagree about stuff and force people to go work things they don't want
> to... which would be totally awful, and wouldn't work, because there's no
> way to force anyone to do anything anyway!
> * What I heard was, the working group is something they're planning, and I
> screwed up and used the present tense in my email. Ooops. Sorry about that,
> all.
> * I don't know for sure about the working group thing, that's just something
> I heard. So it's also hearsay, I don't actually know that for certain, and
> so I really shouldn't have brought it up. This also is my fault. I'm really,
> really sorry.
> I was really, frankly, fishing for a way to figure out which bloody
> namespace implementation I should go try to make work well enough to get it
> into the Trunk. Since I don't care that much *how* it works, I just want to
> figure out which approach is the most popular so that I minimize the risk
> that I'm hacking on something no one will ever use. I didn't want to imply
> that anyone should use this information to force anyone to do anything, etc,
> I think _that would be awful_.  But I used a very poor set of words and
> completely failed to express myself effectively. This is *my* fault.
> I was just looking for a way of getting information about what people in the
> community actually wanted. I was not trying to make people vote to decide
> anything. "Resolution of Contentious Issues" is really the worst title I
> could have chosen. I screwed up there. In my head I pictured polling people
> and then discussing the results of the "opinion poll" on squeak-dev, to see
> whether or not the increased visibility into the desires of the community
> might get people aligning a bit more on what to go do.
> I also want to be clear that _I don't want a working group_ or _any such
> thing_.
> I'm looking back at what I wrote and seeing how you could even easily read
> into it that I was bashing the Squeak community while praising the Pharo
> community. Not my intent at all, and I didn't intend to beat up on the Pharo
> community either -- lots of really nice people doing really cool stuff there
> too. In the past I've avoided trying to compare the projects too much,
> because it's one of those things you can say and get both parties thinking
> that you've been kicking their dogs even if that isn't your intent.
> Wow! Man this one takes the cake. It's just an epic piece of poor
> communication on my part.
> My sincerest apologies to everyone who has read this this thread. I was
> really just fishing to see if people would be interested in using the voting
> tool to do an opinion poll. It was a random passing thought that I should
> have let bake for a few more minutes. What I honestly should have done was
> go to bed hours before I sent that. I've been on something of a programming
> spree for a few days -- got some time off and just went nuts with a much
> needed creative burst -- and I may have been pushing myself a little too
> hard. Sleep is important, sometimes I forget about that when the bits are
> lining up and I'm in the zone :(
> I am self-imposing detention.
> I will read what I write before I click send.
> I will read what I write before I click send.
> I will read what I write before I click send.
> I will read what I write before I click send.
> I will read what I write before I click send.
> I will read what I write before I click send.
> I will read what I write before I click send.
> I will read what I write before I click send.
>  --casey
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Just to clarify, I am not against survey-style polling; in fact I am
>> greatly interested in counting.  However, the way this was presented,
>> as a "resolution of contentious issues," while at the same time,
>> itself, being contentious with divisive, comparative language; that
>> approach will not be effective to garner my support.
>>
>> I would only participate if I were sure the poll would not serve as a
>> wedge to divide our community / communities.
>>
>> However, maybe not, because perhaps the emergent phenomena of "no
>> consensus" should be viewed _as_ a consensus; that the proposal could
>> not pass muster with enough of the bright minds here for action to be
>> warranted and, therefore, the choice not do do it was and is the
>> correct one.
>>
>>  - Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Casey,
>> >
>> >> I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues.
>> >> Namespaces
>> >> are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call them
>> >> Oddballs,)
>> >> just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that almost everyone
>> >> who
>> >> speaks out has a different idea about how to #doIt. The conversation
>> >> usually
>> >> goes in a long circle, and then gets garbage collected when everyone
>> >> gets
>> >> too fatigued with the debate to continue it.
>> >
>> > Vigorous debate is not only normal, but essential, for a successful
>> > software development community.
>> >
>> >> I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We
>> >
>> > Did the "silent majority" have a silent vote, and that's how you know
>> > they were the "majority" of something?
>> >
>> >> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the
>> >> first
>> >> SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in
>> >> squeak-dev,
>> >
>> > We "tend to argue in circles" in squeak-dev.  That's ridiculous.
>> >
>> >> while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make decisions about
>> >> stuff
>> >
>> > They do?  I searched the Pharo list for "working group" but did not
>> > find any announcements.  Can you tell us more?  Who are they, what did
>> > they work on, and what was the final "solution"?
>> >
>> > As for Squeak, squeak-dev _is_ the working group.
>> >
>> >> like this, and then as a result get to make progress, even on issues
>> >> which
>> >
>> > "Progress?"  That's a very subjective term..
>> >
>> >> are contentious in their community. I don't know if we actually need or
>> >> want
>> >> a "working group," whatever that is, but it would be nice to _have a
>> >> pulse
>> >> on the desires of the broader Squeak community._
>> >
>> > I would say, if the pulse isn't clear, this is the place to find it.
>> > You can poll here, our community is small enough to be able to do that
>> > by just reading the responses of the folks who care enough to voice
>> > their opinion.  The "silent majority" has no voice other than their
>> > code, which must be good enough to lure our community into change.
>> >
>> >> two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, it would
>> >> be
>> >> nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that I can quit
>> >> arguing
>> >> on a mailing list and #doIt.
>> >
>> > I think you know, there's plenty to work on that requires no arguing.
>> >  :)
>> >
>> >  - Chris
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Casey Ransberger
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Frank Shearar
On 2011/05/09 22:01, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> Oh, great, you made us all afraid with this thread about coding and democracy...
> See how embarassed and negative the reactions were.
>
> If it's just about self punishment, then it's all right, you'll
> probably get plenty of suggestions.
<snip>
> Or maybe read the whole literature on java an C++ before daring asking
> a single stupid question about object programming.

OK, no, I couldn't wish THAT on ANYONE!

frank

> I'll let my peers finish the work.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nicolas
>
> 2011/5/9 Casey Ransberger<[hidden email]>:
>> Yes, yes, yes. It was about the worst piece of communication I've done in
>> the longest time. Here's where I screwed it up:
>> * The title was completely wrong. I even managed to totally botch a
>> statement meant to say "I'm not so sure about the whole working-group idea
>> that I heard about because it sounds exclusionary, even if it gets conflicts
>> resolved," such that someone on the list thought I was being disrespectful
>> even though I didn't even intend to disagree, much less display any
>> disrespect. Mega-oops. This was my fault.
>> * I called it a "silent majority" because my gut says there's a Pareto
>> effect going on, and probably 20% or less of us actually post. I have no
>> proof nor a count of the readers on squeak-dev. I shouldn't have made a
>> statement like that without having some numbers to attach to it. I screwed
>> up here too. Totally my fault.
>> * Completely incorrect terminology in the text of my message suggested to
>> most readers that I was trying to bureaucratize the process whenever we
>> disagree about stuff and force people to go work things they don't want
>> to... which would be totally awful, and wouldn't work, because there's no
>> way to force anyone to do anything anyway!
>> * What I heard was, the working group is something they're planning, and I
>> screwed up and used the present tense in my email. Ooops. Sorry about that,
>> all.
>> * I don't know for sure about the working group thing, that's just something
>> I heard. So it's also hearsay, I don't actually know that for certain, and
>> so I really shouldn't have brought it up. This also is my fault. I'm really,
>> really sorry.
>> I was really, frankly, fishing for a way to figure out which bloody
>> namespace implementation I should go try to make work well enough to get it
>> into the Trunk. Since I don't care that much *how* it works, I just want to
>> figure out which approach is the most popular so that I minimize the risk
>> that I'm hacking on something no one will ever use. I didn't want to imply
>> that anyone should use this information to force anyone to do anything, etc,
>> I think _that would be awful_.  But I used a very poor set of words and
>> completely failed to express myself effectively. This is *my* fault.
>> I was just looking for a way of getting information about what people in the
>> community actually wanted. I was not trying to make people vote to decide
>> anything. "Resolution of Contentious Issues" is really the worst title I
>> could have chosen. I screwed up there. In my head I pictured polling people
>> and then discussing the results of the "opinion poll" on squeak-dev, to see
>> whether or not the increased visibility into the desires of the community
>> might get people aligning a bit more on what to go do.
>> I also want to be clear that _I don't want a working group_ or _any such
>> thing_.
>> I'm looking back at what I wrote and seeing how you could even easily read
>> into it that I was bashing the Squeak community while praising the Pharo
>> community. Not my intent at all, and I didn't intend to beat up on the Pharo
>> community either -- lots of really nice people doing really cool stuff there
>> too. In the past I've avoided trying to compare the projects too much,
>> because it's one of those things you can say and get both parties thinking
>> that you've been kicking their dogs even if that isn't your intent.
>> Wow! Man this one takes the cake. It's just an epic piece of poor
>> communication on my part.
>> My sincerest apologies to everyone who has read this this thread. I was
>> really just fishing to see if people would be interested in using the voting
>> tool to do an opinion poll. It was a random passing thought that I should
>> have let bake for a few more minutes. What I honestly should have done was
>> go to bed hours before I sent that. I've been on something of a programming
>> spree for a few days -- got some time off and just went nuts with a much
>> needed creative burst -- and I may have been pushing myself a little too
>> hard. Sleep is important, sometimes I forget about that when the bits are
>> lining up and I'm in the zone :(
>> I am self-imposing detention.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>>   --casey
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Chris Muller<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Just to clarify, I am not against survey-style polling; in fact I am
>>> greatly interested in counting.  However, the way this was presented,
>>> as a "resolution of contentious issues," while at the same time,
>>> itself, being contentious with divisive, comparative language; that
>>> approach will not be effective to garner my support.
>>>
>>> I would only participate if I were sure the poll would not serve as a
>>> wedge to divide our community / communities.
>>>
>>> However, maybe not, because perhaps the emergent phenomena of "no
>>> consensus" should be viewed _as_ a consensus; that the proposal could
>>> not pass muster with enough of the bright minds here for action to be
>>> warranted and, therefore, the choice not do do it was and is the
>>> correct one.
>>>
>>>   - Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Chris Muller<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>> Casey,
>>>>
>>>>> I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues.
>>>>> Namespaces
>>>>> are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call them
>>>>> Oddballs,)
>>>>> just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that almost everyone
>>>>> who
>>>>> speaks out has a different idea about how to #doIt. The conversation
>>>>> usually
>>>>> goes in a long circle, and then gets garbage collected when everyone
>>>>> gets
>>>>> too fatigued with the debate to continue it.
>>>>
>>>> Vigorous debate is not only normal, but essential, for a successful
>>>> software development community.
>>>>
>>>>> I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We
>>>>
>>>> Did the "silent majority" have a silent vote, and that's how you know
>>>> they were the "majority" of something?
>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the
>>>>> first
>>>>> SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in
>>>>> squeak-dev,
>>>>
>>>> We "tend to argue in circles" in squeak-dev.  That's ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>> while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make decisions about
>>>>> stuff
>>>>
>>>> They do?  I searched the Pharo list for "working group" but did not
>>>> find any announcements.  Can you tell us more?  Who are they, what did
>>>> they work on, and what was the final "solution"?
>>>>
>>>> As for Squeak, squeak-dev _is_ the working group.
>>>>
>>>>> like this, and then as a result get to make progress, even on issues
>>>>> which
>>>>
>>>> "Progress?"  That's a very subjective term..
>>>>
>>>>> are contentious in their community. I don't know if we actually need or
>>>>> want
>>>>> a "working group," whatever that is, but it would be nice to _have a
>>>>> pulse
>>>>> on the desires of the broader Squeak community._
>>>>
>>>> I would say, if the pulse isn't clear, this is the place to find it.
>>>> You can poll here, our community is small enough to be able to do that
>>>> by just reading the responses of the folks who care enough to voice
>>>> their opinion.  The "silent majority" has no voice other than their
>>>> code, which must be good enough to lure our community into change.
>>>>
>>>>> two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, it would
>>>>> be
>>>>> nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that I can quit
>>>>> arguing
>>>>> on a mailing list and #doIt.
>>>>
>>>> I think you know, there's plenty to work on that requires no arguing.
>>>>   :)
>>>>
>>>>   - Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Casey Ransberger
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Casey Ransberger-2
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote:
Or maybe read the whole literature on java an C++ before daring asking
a single stupid question about object programming.
I'll let my peers finish the work.

Can I help? Oh wait, I already did;) Ooh I wonder if one of the costume shops in town has an actual dunce hat that I can buy. I could put a hamburger on my head, but I really don't want to do that.
 
Cheers

Nicolas
 
--
Casey Ransberger


12