Subject: Re: [bug#76407] [GCD] Rename the default branch

From: Leo Famulari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:56:01 -0400

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 12:34:33PM +0100, Simon Tournier wrote:
> Consent does not mean we are all convinced, neither we fully support,
> neither we are deeply aligned, neither our own opinion reads “yeah this
> change the best idea ever”, etc.  Consent means accepting another angle
> than our own, one angle that I do not fully share but I can live with.

Now we get into semantics, but I disagree that "consent means accepting
another angle than our own".

Consent should be active and, at least to some degree, enthusiastic.

If we can't reach an enthusiastic consensus without strong objections
from team members, then we can talk about using another method of making
a decision, like I mentioned in my earlier email. But we shouldn't call
it consensus.

To repeat my earlier email again, I've been involved in decisions made
by "consensus" where the reality is that a small group of advocates
pushed very hard to make a change and eventually exhausted those with
objections. The objectors made a calculated decision to accept the
change because the cost to them, personally, of ultimately rejecting the
proposal was too high.

I think that's a valid way to decide, but it's not consensus.

I understand the GCD process to aim higher than that. It requires us all
to demonstrate leadership, solidarity, and care. It's easy to propose
something, but then the work begins.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I don't think it will be possible to
reach a consensus on every subject we discuss.