From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 16 21:16:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [69.147.83.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A9F106564A for ; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:16:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from opti.dougb.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFAF14DC81; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:16:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <505641A0.10606@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:16:16 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warner Losh References: <201209141601.q8EG1lmf003367@fire.js.berklix.net> <2C4DFA77-E2D8-4DA1-9512-5497ADAF740E@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <2C4DFA77-E2D8-4DA1-9512-5497ADAF740E@bsdimp.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing CVS from HEAD X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:16:17 -0000 On 09/14/2012 21:39, Warner Losh wrote: > I think that we've reached the point in this thread that "no clear consensus exists for the change, therefore the status quo should remain the case." > > All these points and counter points clearly show there's non consensus, so this should be tabled. "I don't think that word means what you think it means." Consensus does not mean "absence of opposing views." It means that the weight of opinion is on one side, and the points raised by those opposed have been carefully considered; and either accommodated or discarded as less important than the benefits of the majority view. The mere fact that someone disagrees with a proposed change should not be enough on its own to scuttle that change. In this case the weight is clearly in the "remove it" camp, and the opposing opinions have been considered, and should be discarded. Defining consensus the other way only gets you the least objectionable changes, which are almost never the best by a purely technical measure. Which is not to say that we should _never_ consider other factors, merely that in a software project one would think that technical merit really should be the deciding factor in the majority of cases. Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)