Re: [rain1 at airmail dot cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On May  7, 2018, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>> I didn't miss that email.  You expressed an opinion about the larger
>> issue, namely, whether or not that snipped should be removed, but NOT
>> on whether we should restore the initial status quo while we saught
>> consensus on the larger issue.

> I will quote my original email on the 3rd:

I saw that.  It was in response to RMS, nothing to do with my offer to
restore the initial status quo until the discussion you took part in
reached consensus.


Next time you wish to respond to a proposal of mine, consider responding
to me, or making it clear that your response, in spite of being to
someone else and in the context of a larger context, has to do with a
different issue.

> "I strongly object to having this text - or any similar text - in the
>  manual." [1]

> You reverted the patch against my explicit and strong objections.

I just assumed and understood your opinion was WRT to the larger issue,
since it was part of that discussion.

Assuming otherwise would be assuming you wanted to cheat so as to have
the patch you supported in before we have consensus about it.  (or do
you by any chance believe we do have consensus on the larger issue,
under the project governance rules?)


> do not pretend that I agreed with it.

I don't.  I don't even know that you read my proposal.  I only said you
(and all the others claiming to have objected to it through you) did not
object to it, which is true.  If you did object to MY PROPOSAL, quote
and link to that, instead of twisting your own words.  It's not like you
didn't have an opportunity.  You had much longer than RMS.


In https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00053.html I wrote

  To me, offering to correct the mistake would show good faith,
  correcting the appearance of rushing the patch in, but if that's what
  it takes, I offer to reverse the patch myself, if the person who
  pushed it in doesn't do so in the next few days, so that we can then
  seek consensus without the fait accompli artificially shifting the
  baseline.

According to the records of the list, there wasn't any response to that
message, aside from the private nod from RMS.

I searched again and couldn't find the other message in which I thought
I had restated my proposal to restore the initial conditions, so I must
conclude I had only done so in a draft, and the restatement ended up not
being posted to the list.  But that doesn't change anything, does it?
You still had opportunity to object to my proposal and didn't, even if
it was voiced only once.  Anyway, I apologize for mistakenly stating I
had posted it twice.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer