Bug#741573: Two menu systems
Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> If, as Russ claimed, a consensus was reached in a properly conducted
> policy process, then I strongly disagree with the approach the TC is
> taking. I think it creates significant harm for the project as a whole
> when the TC does not generally respect the processes and work of the
> rest of the project.
It is part of the job of the TC to resolve disputes about the content
of technical policy. We do that not simply by observing whether some
proper process was followed. We do it by examining the issue on the
merits.
> Respecting the time and energy doesn't mean agreeing with the result.
> It does mean taking the time to understand the result.
I have read the entire bug log. It is mostly based on that reading
that I have come to the view I now hold.
> So, if you've reviewed this enough to support Bill's claim that there
> isn't a consensus because there are substantial objections raised in the
> discussions and not addressed, then please say that. If you have not
> reviewed things sufficiently to make that conclusion, then I ask you and
> the rest of the TC to take sufficient steps that such a review happen.
It is not the job of the TC to decide whether there was or was not
consensus. It is the job of the TC to decide in cases of dispute what
the best technical approach is.
It is clear that there is a dispute here; a dispute which has been
referred to the TC. That means that it is the TC's job now to decide
on the merits.
Having read the bug log I disagree with the policy change that was
made (and then reverted). I disagree with it for the reasons stated
by Bill and for reasons based on my own analysis of the situation as I
have set out in this thread. I disagree with the change on
substantive grounds, not on the grounds of any procedural complaint.
I disagree with the policy change despite the substantive arguments
made in the bug log - arguments which I have, obviously, read and
considered.
> If the TC looks at the discussion and concludes that "no, nope not a
> consensus there," then I'll be entirely happy with the sort of
> discussions the TC is happening now.
In deciding what the contents of the policy should be, it is not
necessary or desirable for the TC to consider whether there was
consensus at the time the policy change was committed (or, for that
matter, reverted).
> Having been in similar situations I felt a lot better when my work
> was reviewed and someone came along, carefully considered the
> discussion and concluded that we hadn't actually reached a
> consensus. At least they respected our work enough to evaluate it.
> We all participate enough in technical work that we know we'll be
> wrong. Wrong is OK; not worth being listened to promotes veryp
> negative feelings.
The question of consensus, or lack of it, is irrelevant.
Listening to the arguments, and evaluating the proposals on their
merits, is exactly what we are doing.
> So, if you've reviewed this enough to support Bill's claim that there
> isn't a consensus because there are substantial objections raised in the
> discussions and not addressed, then please say that.
You seem to be using a strange definition of consensus that suggests a
consensus might exist despite objections, if those objections have
been "addressed" (to the satisfaction of some participants but not to
the satisfaction of the objectors). But, this is not relevant to the
TC so there is no need to say more about it.
Ultimately you seem to be seeking a remedy for what you see as a
process violation. The TC is not going to help you with that. As I
say, it is quite common for disputes to end up at the TC after one or
both sides have escalated to questionable actions.
In these situations the TC will try to decide on the underlying
technical issue, rather than seeking to judge people's past actions.
Thanks,
Ian.
Reply to: