From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C1D1F5AE for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:22:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726407AbgFPCWn (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 22:22:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35126 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725984AbgFPCWm (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 22:22:42 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A49DC061A0E for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id b5so7558283pgm.8 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:22:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1ju62vorDqGFaryMU/JUDtql/qTL+2xi901yI/GJMbg=; b=abdAs64h+tZD56NPeLLjof5/90sXJrAv+frInCxDS3JMnY4bDTWVNxrOMFe+/AkVTM BXg0B9PyAboMCuPZ9X653E3KoMLoerSyVAPAKO8W6Ym7U/2N5dSr09d6NMixx0B0j+EA gAzpzyJgxv2AiOHj6zN6Z6Q1ZGZa1bay7qD71U3aKsEneg/Dy1eJKYfatX5Xz3ORh3I0 RpD9HeIYB+TYXOWXTxnbZpDlAwKNMjtjFXctr/5oH9TvDh4sJAXZpOX8MuSqUlRpZe96 t2Mu6OR3M4QBcS48lzn+dDXVBYsEs23NcVCo77+KWwE7HolixrRnBUq5JRKvtKwk3Qux mugw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1ju62vorDqGFaryMU/JUDtql/qTL+2xi901yI/GJMbg=; b=h+jjBdWddstJHVsWCk7mjkCKMn+7LQH/ebdj5bZ82J6f0YbSaIefZF4fZtALeBPebg 2yqw0E3BKNSLAVP+a6+rAu4SNomYVxbi8nIq070lIdJrZ1R/gfATRQ/RfPWOOBrAJTzc 1hkuMKHqD3TFOlc3t5msDqF8KcxemUhgd3B3GgVNusSr7urKXFy5VYNRQHBE2YfOvG3/ TRpzPSFS24my/jGk3oydAETy/dQy0rnuUDCJVPQDPtAuek4d8bbMv/XtJ03lcjp6wBB+ 9QA7EH3u2tppsazkogeW395a7gQxNddpR6Xt++sthr6kLi/JCYX6KAZ3Nzons6Rb9oqO SoqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Izfkv1jtpk2ssf0rweXzfI8XM6NSj10uUbynECTvVqW4mpmfW QpjM//eCZNxMWyW3dGS0BVDKa+4o X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQlxDrpVs/5A5MZ5yZGzD7ofg5iHxLXoTx6CxR9xfUR06kkvD6ToIV06TatIDRBGeKl6uaIA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:ff51:: with SMTP id s17mr348169pgk.300.1592274161602; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2ce:200:cf67:1de0:170f:be65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b7sm14671994pfo.202.2020.06.15.19.22.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:22:39 -0700 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Nomen Nescio Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Consensus on a new default branch name Message-ID: <20200616022239.GD164606@google.com> References: <6b6f161981a07070871633fe02c4c3f9@dizum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6b6f161981a07070871633fe02c4c3f9@dizum.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Nomen, Nomen Nescio wrote: > Taylor, how do you propose to build this consensus you're talking about > on the name change? I'm glad you're interested in learning more about the Git development process! There are some open source projects that function (mostly) as a democracy --- they build the features that those voting request. A famous example of this would be PHP[1]. There is something admirable about that approach, but it is not always easy to get right. Many other projects have their own approaches to governance. In Git, we make most decisions by a rough consensus of active contributors, as judged by the maintainer. There are times that consensus may go in a direction that is unworkable, and the maintainer has the ability to make a different decision during those times. If decision making ever goes off the rails (perhaps you've judged this to be such a moment!), users of Git have the recourse of forking the code; such moments have happened in some open source projects in the past, for the better, such as the EGCS fork of GCC that was widely used by distributors and eventually became the standard version of GCC. If you are looking to have more influence in the Git project, my advice would be to become a respected contributor, by providing patches, well thought out reviews, documentation improvements, advice to bug reporters, or other contributions. As others learn to trust your feedback, you will have more influence on consensus. Even better, you get the immediate benefit of your own work as soon as you do it. I believe Taylor was also interested in another kind of consensus, between hosting providers, but that would be likely to coincide with what the Git project does so the difference is a bit academic. [...] > slacktivism This is a very weird way to describe the people who are spending their time to maintain Git. Thanks and hope that helps, Jonathan [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/821821/