Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"
Blu <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Actually, I followed the thread(s) while the proposal(s) were being
> discussed. I whish I could convince myself of the contrary, but my
> opinion stands.
Okay. Just so long as you're aware that a lot of those voters, myself
included, were not using the GR to say "Dunc-Tank is great, please
continue!" but instead saying something more nuanced.
I have a lot of positive experience with commercial entities providing
sponsorship and contributions to free software projects without
controlling them. My experience is that this often results in a
substantial increase in quality with no compromise in principles (and
that's despite my personal antipathy towards commercial entities and my
personal desire to ideally never work for one). However, I know this
doesn't always happen, and other people have had much more negative
experiences than I have, which is (at least one reason) why there's a
range of beliefs and a range of reactions.
I do think that Dunc-Tank can fail despite accomplishing its nominal goals
if enough people are upset, regardless of whether I agree with why they're
upset. Communities require compromise and occasionally require doing
something possibly helpful that one is happy with because other people
aren't. However, I don't think that people expressing upsetness (even
significant upsetness) is in and of itself a reason to call something a
failure. There's a path in-between that and ignoring any opinions one
doesn't agree with, and I don't think there's an all-fired hurry to come
to a final conclusion.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>