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

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Peter Rabbitson <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>

Given your other message about the definition of the word "content", I
think we've achieved clarity and the reason for the misunderstanding is
clear.

   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".
>

They are not small obstacles.  And, via this list, we do have a governance
mechanism for additional criteria.

What I would oppose, however, is an unbounded sequence of new obstacles
introduced after all prior obstacles are overcome (without new evidence or
concerns coming to light), as I don't think that's fair to Chad (or any
developer).  That's a passive-aggressive way of saying "no", which isn't
good governance.

Thus, I asked people to come up with -- in advance -- the list of criteria
that would satisfy them.


>
> 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.
>

Instead of a "you don't care, so I quit" message (i.e. virtually rather
than physically walking out of the room in protest), I'd have preferred one
or more of these sorts of contributions:

* "hey, given the changes in the code base, I'm not going to review
anything until it's settled down more"

* "hey, in light of X, Y, Z new facts, here are some additional things I'd
like to see on the punch list, does anyone else agree?"

* "hey, in light of the CPAN river conversation, I think others might agree
with me now that the risks of change are too high.  Does anyone want to
reconsider their decision to go forward with Test::Builder instead of a
Test::Builder2 approach?"

To the last point, in hindsight, I wish we'd had that discussion first at
the hackathon as I think it might have influenced the others.  Mea culpa.
Or possibly, we wouldn't have gotten there without the early warm
discussions as warm-ups.  No way to know and we can't do it over, so we'll
just have to muddle forward.

David

-- 
David Golden <[email protected]> Twitter/IRC: @xdg