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

On 05/01/2015 11:23 AM, David Golden wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Peter Rabbitson <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     On 04/30/2015 11:23 PM, David Golden wrote:
>
>
>           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.

I absolutely agree with the last (only last) sentence. Hence why I tried 
to (but evidently failed miserably) to say "no" as early and as clearly 
as possible. I do not agree with the rest quotation, but that's 
water/bridge anyway, so pointless to spend time discussing further 
(again - I will publicly substantiate this upon request).

> 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

I agree that within the narrow context of "moving things forward" a FYIQ 
response is the least desirable one. However within the context of the 
bigger picture, combined with my belief system I can no longer 
participate in this process without severely compromising my own 
integrity. Thus "my only winning move is not to play".

This doesn't mean that my position itself is changing, I am simply 
electing (with a visible record) to stop advocating it in this instance. 
It is still there for the taking by anyone else sufficiently motivated.