Hidden Commits in 4.3

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 04/13/2017 11:37 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> On 04/12/2017 04:23 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote:
>> I think the next step is for the community to officially figure out 
>> if this is a good direction to go in, however that happens.
>
> I had productive face to face discussion with multiple people in the 
> past couple a day.  Let us put all technical details aside and look at 
> the situation at the high level.
>
> The current tentacular discussions are the *gathering of three 
> different goals*:

There a was a secondary point I wanted to make. But I did not wanted to 
inflate the the size of the previous email too much.

The recent discussion *mixes multiple complex topics*. Complex both at 
the technical and UI level. It results in a *back and forth of 
interleaved discussion* *with people caring about different aspects*.

As a good symptom of that, I've read maybe 3 summaries of the situation 
and existing consensus by three different people in the last 48h. To me 
they seems to reach sightly different conclusions and outline different 
consensus. I'm not even sure how to interpret some ambiguity in them.

After discussion this further with Gregory, I think *we really needs to 
introduce more focus this discussion*. I know everybody are itching to 
bring up some topics, but we should agree on what is the *next most 
important small step we can take and focus on that*. Without trying to 
alter other aspects in the same go. Having a*small group of neutral 
moderators* to lead the discussion would help.

 From the current state of the discussion, I think we should starts with 
a *restricted discussion about an alternative to strip*, /mutually 
exclusive with evolution/. I personally though local-hiding and 
obsolescence hiding could coexist until I read Gregory email. He seems 
to be raising valid concerns there.  When that topic is sorted out, we 
can move the discussion to something else, for example how they could 
coexist.

What do you think?

-- 
Pierre-Yves David