Concurrency architecture for D2

[Michel Fortin]

On 2009-12-28 11:20:53 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu 
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:

> Michel Fortin wrote:
> 
>> I think it should be as open as possible. If done in a separate smaller 
>> group, it may be a good idea to post reports to the general newsgroup 
>> more or less regularly so that those who cannot participate in the 
>> detailed discussions have an idea of where it's going, and also to get 
>> more general input.
> 
> That's obviously the best way to go, but there are a couple of 
> circumstances that make that more difficult.
> 
> 1. Chapter drafts will be the basis for discussion, but understandably 
> the publisher does not allow me to freely distribute them.

I see. I find that unfortunate, because this seems to imply it'll need 
to be a closed group, not only closed regarding the participants but 
also regarding external observers (because the basis of the discussion 
will be hidden from them).

Often you can evaluate how good something is not only by looking at the 
final result, but by looking at the process that led to it. Having an 
archive of the past is often very useful to check why some things have 
been made that way. But that works best if the discussion are done in 
the open.


> 2. Time. There are regulars on this group that have a "when in doubt, 
> make them sweat" policy. I think it's a very good and gainful attitude 
> for everyone involved, and I generally enjoy discussing this or that 
> idea because it helps me and others gain a better understanding, but 
> this time there won't be much time for discussions of the form:
> 
> a) Poster: "Subtle issue X sounds like a bad idea. I don't agree with it."
> 
> b) <Long argumentation back and forth.>
> 
> c) Poster: "I stay unconvinced." or "That makes sense."
> 
> There will be very little time for anything like this, particularly if 
> explaining X requires a fair amount of background building.
> 
> Building a shared vision is very difficult among only a small group of 
> people, and doing so for a larger group will be an enormous drag. I 
> feel very lucky that Walter and I share views most of the time (except, 
> of course, when he's wrong :o)).

I think it'd be a good idea to set an objective for the group for that 
limited time frame. This way if the discussion deviates towards 
something off-topic it's easy to suggest posting to the general or the 
D.learn newsgroup instead, or if the discussion is draining taking too 
much time in explanations it's easy to justify postponing that to later 
in order to fulfill the more pressing objectives. Just be careful not 
setting the goal too broadly.

Also keep in mind that we don't really need a shared vision among 
everyone. What's needed is someone who takes the decisions. Discussion 
is only needed to help that person take the right decisions. Although 
consensus among all members certainly boosts the decider 
self-confidence, it is not required, and not necessarily desirable 
either. A consensus among only a few key people is all that is needed, 
and this has little to do with who is allowed to raise issues and 
propose solutions.

And those few key people are the implementors, because if they don't 
agree the result isn't gonna be pretty.

(This reminds me pretty much of how HTML5 is being developed right now: 
Ian Hickson, the spec editor, decides what goes in and out. But he 
always seeks the broadest consensus among the major browser vendors 
because in the end it's them who decide what they want to implement, 
and if they refuse to implement the spec, the spec is useless. This 
doesn't prevent the WHATWG mailing list from being open to all. I did 
some research a few years ago, posted the results on the list and after 
some discussion it was used to make the <figure> element what it is 
now. I wouldn't have bothered if the list wasn't open.)

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/