Elijah Newren wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 6:09 PM Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Elijah Newren wrote: > ... > > > You're not alone, Alex; I objected to that part as well. (See e.g. > > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BF4rXBOKsn8bG6y3QUEtNVV9K2Pk5NmwrU5818CqhRt_Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > and various other emails in that thread, ending with "agree to > > > disagree" later). I still object to it as I did then. > > > > You made your disagreement known in [1], I responded to it with a > > devastating argument in [2], and you immediately withtdrew from the > > discussion in [3] without engaging my argument at all. > > I didn't find anything new or persuasive in your rehashing of your > arguments. The fact that you don't find something persuasive doesn't mean there wasn't anything persuasive. Moreover, the argument was completely new. > I had stated my disagreement twice already, and having us both repeat > our arguments does no one any good, so I just stated we can agree to > disagree. I did not repeat my argument, I made a completely new argument. > > > I'm curious whether it'll just be resubmitted again multiple times, > > > eventually with a cover letter that repeats something along the lines > > > of "these are the non-controversial changes from last-year series > > > which...don't have any reason not to be merged." > > > > The fact that **one** person was not 100% on board with a change doesn't > > make it controversial. > > This is a disconcerting response. Why? That's the definition of the word "controversial". In order for X to be controversial a substantive amount of people need to have opposing views. The fact that a few people deny the roundness of the Earth doesn't make that idea "controversial". Similarly, the fact that one person disagrees with X doesn't make X controversial. > I also find your characterization of the old thread disappointing; I > clearly cared enough to state my objection in three separate emails, > so it's more than just "not 100% on board". I said "change", not "thread". And, you were on board with 23 out of 24 lines of the patch. So you were 96% on board. That's just a mathematical fact. > And Junio referred to the analogy in your "devastating argument" as > "irrelevant", so it's not clear you convinced others either. Junio is not infallible. The fact that Junio said X was irrelevant doesn't mean X was irrelevant. And in this particular case he was wrong, as I explained in [1], because he equated apples (regulations) to oranges (policy). To be specific: this is a false equivalence fallacy. When I pointed out that fallacy he didn't bother to reply [2]. > > You made the conscious choice to withdraw from the discussion > > immediately, so just like a person who abandons an election cycle and > > decides not to vote, you are leving the future of the matter in the > > hands of others. > > This is quite a disappointing argument. If this position were to be > accepted broadly within the project, it would suggest scorched-earth > last-man standing tactics -- just arguing until the other side runs > out of energy. If that was used to determine our forward strategy, > it'd result in a massive waste of energy, people feeling drained and > losing motivation to contribute, some people just deciding to leave > the project, and a myriad of other negative outcomes. This is how progress is achieved in all areas of society, from public debates, to trials, to elections. You can't just stand up and leave when the debate is only 25% complete, and then expect to win it. Either you care enough see it through, or you don't. Even in sports, and in video games, completing the match is the bare minimum to win. Unlike in a video game, the fact that you left the debate doesn't necessarily mean you lost, but you definitely did not win it. > In fact, occurrences of such behavior has already had such outcomes. That's your opinion, my opinion is the exact opposite. The reason people have left the project is because even though they care, and they stay for 100% of the race, if some bigwig who only said "I disagree" and left having only participated in 10% of the debate, the debate is over, always in favor of the incumbents. This is not a fair marketplace of ideas where the best ideas win, it's not a meritocracy, and discourages anyone who is not already part of the big club. > Rehashing the same arguments repeatedly damages the discourse within > the project as well as the project itself. There's no point in doing > so. All philosophers would disagree with you. There are some debates that have lasted for millennia and still continue today. Many arguments for free will are repeated exactly the same, but some are slightly different, and merit a new look. As long as we don't solve this debate, it will continue, and everyone that cares sees value in it. Similarly, until "git pull" does something sensible by default (which isn't the case now), these debates will continue, and there's value in them. Perhaps if other people didn't stand up and left in the middle of the debate in 2013 we would have solved the issue back then and we wouldn't be here. But here we are yet again, and if people continue ignoring arguments and leaving the debate before it's even 10% done, we will be here again in 2022, 2024, and probably more. Especially if they straight-up reject patches that according to themselves are 96% perfectly fine. Cheers. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAMP44s2XFQoda_PMULWha-rj9HhNfEddO5fikmswk9=AWN4RCw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqpn3lbhxn.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ -- Felipe Contreras
